Preamble

The House met at half past Two o'Clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions — FOOD SUPPLIES

Commonwealth Producers (Contracts)

Mr. Hurd: asked the Minister of Food how far it is his Department's practice when making bulk purchase contracts for butter, cheese and other foodstuffs to offer preferential prices to producers in the British Commonwealth and Empire.

The Minister of Food (Mr. Maurice Webb): I am always anxious to get as much as I can of these commodities from Commonwealth producers, and, in general, I am taking all that they can send. The question of giving any form of preference under these contracts to Commonwealth producers does not, however, arise because I am still bound to obtain as much as I can of these commodities at reasonable prices from all sources, and in any case bulk purchase contracts must be based primarily on commercial considerations.

Mr. Hurd: Will the Minister give an assurance that he is willing to pay to the Dominions prices at least as good as those he pays to foreign countries, and that he is not trying to trade on the good will and loyalty of Dominion producers?

Mr. Webb: I am not trying to trade on the good will of anybody. I am trying to get prices that are favourable to us and to them in every circumstance.

Russian Crabmeat

Mr. H. L. D'A. Hopkinson: asked the Minister of Food what losses were incurred by his Department on the shipment of Russian crabmeat from the United Kingdom to the United States of America,

which American dockers recently refused to unload from the s.s. "Parthia."

Mr. Webb: I cannot say what the profit or loss will be until the goods are sold.

Mr. Hopkinson: asked the Minister of Food the total value of the Russian crabmeat shipped by his Department from the United Kingdom to the United States of America during the current year.

Mr. Webb: Just over £400,000.

Mr. Hopkinson: Can the Minister say how he reconciles this transaction, which, according to American papers, amounts to far more than that sum, with the Prime Minister's recent declaration that the machinery going to Russia was being used for the import into this country of valuable feedingstuffs and timber, whereas in point of fact it seems to be used for the shipment to America of crabmeat which is not wanted, and on which we shall have a loss?

Mr. Webb: The larger part of this trade took place a long time ago—long before the considerations the hon. Gentleman has in mind arose.

Mr. Hopkinson: Is it not a fact that there have been three shipments of crabmeat to the United States in the last three or four weeks?

Sir John Mellor: asked the Minister of Food how much crabmeat has been purchased by his Department from the Union of the Soviet Socialist Republics during the past two years; and to whom it has been sold.

Mr. Webb: Two thousand four hundred and seventy tons. Some has been sold in this country and some has been re-exported, mainly to America.

Sir J. Mellor: Why does the Minister deal in Russian crabmeat?

Mr. Webb: Because at one time there was a very large trade for it in America.

Mr. R. S. Hudson: How can the right hon. Gentleman reconcile the reply he has just given with his reply to an earlier supplementary question, when I understood him to say that this crabmeat transaction took place years and years ago, long before there was any question of orders from Russia?

Mr. Webb: Not years and years ago: much earlier this year.

Mr. Hudson: In that case, when the right hon. Gentleman looks at his answer again he will find that he definitely misled his hearers in the House.

Mr. Sydney Silverman: Can my right hon. Friend say whether the attention of the United States' authorities has been drawn to the fact that this attempt to conduct foreign policy by strikes is doing harm to this country and none to the Soviet Union?

Sir William Darling: Was any of this crabmeat offered to the Kitchen Committee of the House of Commons?

Dr. Barnett Stross: Can my right hon. Friend tell the House how one can distinguish between Communist crab and capitalist crab?

Mr. Roland Robinson: asked the Minister of Food how often in August were shipments of Russian crabmeat made by his Department to the United States of America; in how many cases did the American dockers refuse to unload this cargo; what was the value of the shipments and the losses incurred; and, in view of the resentment caused in the United States of America, if he will give an assurance that no further shipments of this sort will be made.

Mr. Webb: Five shipments worth just over £95,000 were made during August. All have been or are being returned. I cannot say until the goods are sold what profit or loss will result. In reply to the last part of the Question, I can only say that I have no immediate intention of resuming shipment to America of this crabmeat.

Mr. Robinson: Is it not particularly unfortunate that, during the war in Korea, American public opinion should be further disturbed by this abortive attempt on the part of the Ministry of Food to ship Russian goods to the United States in British disguise?

Mr. Paton: Can the Ministry say if these particular shipments of crabmeat were bought by American importers?

Mr. Webb: Yes, they were.

Imported Apples

Mr. Hurd: asked the Minister of Food if, in view of the heavy home crop of apples, he has set any limit to the importation of eating apples from Italy and cider apples from France.

Mr. Webb: No arrangements have yet been made for imports of eating apples this season from any source, but, in considering what should be done, the position of the home crop will certainly be kept in mind. Cider apples are imported by private traders under licence, but no licences have so far been issued this season.

Mr. Hurd: How, then, does it happen that Italian eating applies are being offered by greengrocers today at a time when there are ample supplies of good quality English eating applies?

Mr. Paton: Does my right hon. Friend realise that any limitation on the importation of eating apples would be strongly resented by consumers unless the distribution of home stocks can be made more effective, and their prices maintained at reasonable levels?

Mr. Gerald Williams: Will the Minister say why Italian apples are, in fact, being offered in the shops at the present time?

Hon. Members: Answer.

Mr. David Renton: In considering his policy, will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind the mistakes made in previous years and the great losses suffered as a consequence?

Mr. Webb: There is no need for great excitement about this. We are working in close collaboration with the Ministry of Agriculture, and are aware of the crops of apples from home producers. All the time we are endeavouring to arrive at arrangements which on balance, I think, are fair to both producers and consumers.

Miss Horsbrugh: Would the Minister not agree that there would be less excitement had he not started this mystery by refusing to say why Italian apples are in the shops?

Brigadier Rayner: asked the Minister of Food what quantities of apples, apple pulp and apple juice have been imported during the last six months.

Mr. Webb: The figures are as follows: cider apples, none; other apples, 90,089 tons; unsweetened apple juice, 110 gallons concentrated, 9,215 gallons unconcentrated. There are no separate figures for apple pulp and sweetened apple juice.

Brigadier Rayner: Does the right hon. Gentleman appreciate that in Devon we have been encouraged to plant cider apple trees over a long term of years; that this year apples are the one good crop we are able to harvest, and that owing to the Minister's importation policy we cannot sell any of them?

Mr. Webb: I cannot think—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] That is a cheap joke. I am just as capable of thinking as anyone on the other side. That is a silly joke to make. I repeat that I cannot think that the figure of 9,000 gallons of apple juice is really a considerable amount when we consider that 22 million gallons of cider were produced last year.

Mr. Bossom: As, unfortunately, several thousand tons of good apples have been blown down recently throughout Kent, will the Minister not purchase those apples before they rot? Otherwise, in another week or two they will rot, and we shall lose those thousands of tons of apples.

Mr. Webb: There is another question down on that point. I am not sure whether it is down today, but I have notice of it, and will answer it.

Mr. Lambert: Can the Minister say how much apple juice there was in the country at the beginning of this year?

Mr. Webb: Not without notice.

Major Legge-Bourke: As the Minister has said that he cannot afford to allow more sugar to go to cider manufacturers, what is the use of importing apple juice?

Mr. Mitchison: Does not my right hon. Friend think that the British farmer would be a little more successful in this free competition if he packed, graded and marketed his apples rather better?

Mr. Nabarro: Where can he get the timber?

Mr. Lambert: asked the Minister of Food what regulations he has made with regard to the importing of French

apple juice and the mixing of it with home-produced apple juice and the selling of the mixture as Devonshire cider.

Mr. Webb: Apple juice and raw cider may be imported from France under open general licence and there is no restriction on their use in making cider in this country. Whether cider made in Devonshire wholly or partly from imported apple juice can properly be described as Devonshire cider could only be decided by the courts.

Mr. Lambert: Will the Minister take steps to see that cider made out of foreign apple juice is sold as made from foreign apple juice and not under a Devonshire name?

Mr. Webb: It is up to the private traders to be honest in their definitions and their trade marks.

Brigadier Peto: asked the Minister of Food what steps he proposes to take to encourage the production and sale of cider apples in this country and to protect home producers against foreign imports.

Mr. Webb: I understand that the present production of cider apples is sufficient to meet the demand. Sales are not controlled in any way but the amount cider manufacturers can take up depends partly on the amount of sugar we can afford to let them have. No cider apples have been imported so far this season. I am afraid, however, that the limiting factor here is the falling off of public demand for cider. There are no steps I can take to alter that situation.

Brigadier Peto: Will the Minister take steps to limit the amount of foreign imports of apples and cider apples?

Mr. Webb: I have already said that there are none. How can I limit nothing?

Brigadier Peto: Will the Minister now say why foreign apples are on the market in this country?

Mr. Deedes: Can the Minister give an assurance that the allocation of sugar to manufacturers will not be conditional, as it has been in the past, upon their taking up some of these surplus and unwanted foreign imports?

Mr. Webb: Sugar for manufacturers is determined solely by the amount of sugar available.

Mr. Douglas Marshall: Is the Minister aware of the great anxiety about this in some parts of the country, and does he propose to do anything about it at all?

Brislings

Commander Noble: asked the Minister of Food what was the cost of his advertising campaign to sell brislings; and what stocks now remain.

Mr. Webb: About £10,000. I do not think it would be in the public interest to disclose the stocks my Department holds.

Commander Noble: Is the Minister aware that his Parliamentary Secretary told me by letter that the object of this advertising was so that the trade could be returned to private business as soon as possible? Will he give an assurance that he will carry out that policy on every possible occasion?

Mr. Webb: That may have been one part of the letter sent by the Parliamentary Secretary, but there were others, too. It is our desire in the case of all commodities of this kind, where supplies are adequate, to return them to private trade.

Mr. R. S. Hudson: Are we to assume from the answer that the advertising has been useless, because the Minister has still got his original stocks of brislings?

Mr. Webb: On the contrary, the advertising has been very valuable to us and the private trade, so much so that I have had one letter from a firm of canners in the private trade who have taken the trouble to say that they hope we will continue the advertising.

Mr. D. Marshall: Would it not be better to advertise the high nutritive value and good quality of the Cornish pilchard?

Meat Ration

Sir Ian Fraser: asked the Minister of Food whether he can make any announcement about the level of the meat ration for the remainder of this year.

Mr. Webb: I generally prefer not to speculate about ration levels, but I think

I can safely say that the meat ration will not vary very much over the next month or so.

Sir I. Fraser: Is there not an abundance of home-produced meat available, and would it not greatly benefit the consumer if this trade was largely freed from Government control?

Mr. Webb: There is a very large quantity of home-produced meat available now. Unfortunately, one of the limiting factors is the absence of slaughterhouse and labour capacity to take advantage of all the meat we have. On the whole, we are making available to the consumer all the home-killed meat, but I cannot speculate in advance of the next month or two in the light of the Argentine and other negotiations now taking place.

Sir Waldron Smithers: When will the right hon. Gentleman realise that if the Government attempt to break the law of supply and demand that law will break them and the country?

Tea Ration

Sir I. Fraser: asked the Minister of Food whether, in view of the hardship caused especially to people living alone and to small families, he can now increase the tea ration.

Mr. Webb: There just is not the tea to enable me to do this at present, I am afraid.

Sir I. Fraser: Could the Minister not buy it?

Mr. Webb: No, Sir.

Dried Fruit

Sir I. Fraser: asked the Minister of Food if he will give an assurance that he is making arrangements to ensure an adequate supply of dried fruit so that housewives may make their Christmas puddings; and whether this year he will secure a fairer division as between the housewife and the manufacturer.

Mr. Webb: An allocation of currants and sultanas to the full extent of our available supplies will be made on 8th October, and should reach the shops in good time for Christmas. I do not think housewives have been unfairly treated in the past. Actually, more dried fruit is


sold by retail for home consumption than before the war, whereas manufacturers as a whole receive only about 50 per cent. of their pre-war usage.

Sir I. Fraser: Will the Minister see if he can make a general statement about Christmas rations before the House rises, instead of making it to the newspapers when the House is not here?

Mr. Webb: I could not possibly make it this week.

Miss Bacon: Since my right hon. Friend is a Lancashire man sitting for a Yorkshire constituency, does not he realise that there is a difference between the North and the South in this matter, and that Northern housewives much prefer to make their own. Christmas cakes instead of buying them in the shops?

Mr. Webb: Yes, and I hope they will find adequate supplies of currants and sultanas, though not raisins, for their purpose.

Imports from Russia

Lord Malcolm Douglas-Hamilton: asked the Minister of Food if he will give an assurance that there will be a continued supply of corn and foodstuffs in the event of supplies from the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics and from Russian-controlled countries being cut off.

Mr. Webb: Supplies would continue but they might not be so great, because, obviously, the field in which we purchase would be narrowed. But if the situation mentioned in the Question ever arose the Government would, naturally, use every endeavour to maintain adequate supplies of all necessary foods.

Lord Malcolm Douglas-Hamilton: Will the right hon. Gentleman ensure that the fullest use will be made of Empire and home-produced supplies?

Mr. Webb: Yes, Sir; we have been doing that for a long time.

Mr. Snadden: Is it not now desirable that the home oat crop should be guaranteed in price beyond 1952, so that increased acreages may be planned?

Mr. G. Williams: Can the Minister tell us what percentage of feedingstuffs is coming from Russia at present?

Mr. Webb: Not without notice.

Government Stocks

Sir W. Smithers: asked the Minister of Food why, when issuing permission for the sale of foods at home or abroad, he makes it a condition that a percentage of the foods sold shall include foods from stocks held by the Government at a price fixed by the Government even though it is higher than the market price.

Mr. Webb: I do not know exactly what sort of transaction the hon. Member has in mind, but I shall be pleased to look into any instance that he can quote.

Margarine Ration

Mr. Keeling: asked the Minister of Food what representations he has received from local food committees that margarine need no longer be rationed; and what action he is taking.

Mr. Webb: I have received no such representation.

Mr. Keeling: However inactive food committees may have been, is not the fact that nothing like the full rationed quantity of margarine is being bought—people are so hard up—a pointer that margarine might be de-rationed?

Mr. Webb: The Question asked what representations I have received. I have received none.

Crops Damage

Lieut.-Colonel Sir Thomas Moore: asked the Minister of Food what arrangements he proposes to make to counteract the bad harvest and the consequent loss in home-produced food.

Mr. Bossom: asked the Minister of Food if he is making any special provision to obtain food from other countries to make up for the damage that our own crops have sustained due to recent storms.

Mr. Webb: It is too soon yet finally to assess the damage done to crops but we do not expect that the estimates of yields on which our import programme was based will need to be revised to any material extent.

Sir T. Moore: Does the Minister realise that the stockpiling of food is one of the most essential factors in any policy of re-armament?

Mr. Webb: I am not dealing with the stockpiling of food. That is not the original Question.

Mr. Bossom: Will the Minister give an assurance that he will not purchase goods from foreign countries in preference to those from the Empire to make up for what we have lost this year in England?

Mr. Webb: When we know the exact results of loss in harvest we shall decide on the necessary adjustments to our import programme.

Mr. Bossom: But will the Minister give an assurance that he will not get the food from foreign countries but from the Empire or other friendly countries?

Holiday Resorts (Rationed Foods)

Mr. Sutcliffe: asked the Minister of Food on what system additional rationed foodstuffs are made available during the season at holiday resorts.

Mr. Webb: These extra supplies are based on the nearest corresponding period of the previous year. We issue supplementary permits to meet any current needs which arise.

Mr. Sutcliffe: Is the Minister aware that it was possible to buy half-a-dozen tins of salmon, and what was described as any amount of ham and tongue, at a shop in Torquay in August? Will he bear in mind there is much dissatisfaction in the north-west because there are not enough of these commodities to go round? Will he review the position?

Mr. Webb: It is the hon. Gentleman's duty to give me evidence of that transaction in Torquay so that the necessary legal action can be taken.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRANSPORT

Commission (Report)

Mr. Peter Thorneycroft: asked the Minister of Transport whether he has yet received the report of the Transport Commission for 1949; and when it is proposed to publish it.

Mr. Renton: asked the Minister of Transport whether he has yet received the report of the British Transport Commission for 1949; and when it will be published.

The Minister of Transport (Mr. Barnes): I expect the report and statement of accounts of the British Transport Commission for 1949 to be published towards the end of this week.

Mr. Thorneycroft: Does the right hon. Gentleman appreciate how very inconvenient it is to hon. Members if they have to wait until very nearly 1951 before getting the report of the Commission for 1949? Will he convey to the Commission our displeasure in the matter and urge them to do their job properly next year?

Mr. Barnes: I think that when I dealt with the question before the House rose in July I indicated that it is always desirable to get these accounts out as quickly as possible. They are enormous accounts and there have been one or two delays, as I said then, but they will be published towards the end of this week. I am not aware that that will cause the House any inconvenience.

Mr. Renton: Is the Minister aware that it is over two months since he told us that the report was almost complete and that printing was well in hand? Bearing in mind that it will be almost out of date by the time hon. Members receive it, will he please administer to the Transport Commission an expression of his displeasure and that of the House?

Mr. Barnes: The hon. Member could not have read the reply I gave him in July, because I said then that I would publish the report in September.

Colonel Gomme-Duncan: In view of the long delay and the vastness of the accounts, to which the Minister referred, is this not proof of the undesirability of creating the colossal monopolies that Members on the other side are so fond of condemning?

Travel Facilities, North Devon

Brigadier Peto: asked the Minister of Transport why it has been found necessary to discontinue the priority queueing for workers in the area served by the Southern National Omnibus Company;


and whether he is aware that this will be the cause of considerable inconvenience to workers in North Devon.

Mr. Barnes: Priority queueing for workers was introduced in the country generally to meet the special conditions obtaining during the war. It was commonly authorised by the war-time permits which were substituted for road service licences. Since the end of the war there has been a general return to the principle of equal facilities for all travellers; also most of the war-time permits have now been replaced by the normal road service licences which cannot be used to authorise priority schemes. The Southern National Omnibus Company, who are withdrawing their priority scheme today, are alive to the need for clearing queues without undue delay and adjusting bus schedules as may be necessary, in order that there may be the minimum of inconvenience to the travelling public generally.

Brigadier Peto: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there would be no inconvenience if there were enough buses?

Mr. Barnes: That is a matter for the licensing authorities. If the hon. and gallant Member cares to put that point to me, that can be looked into separately. That is a different point from the priority principle.

Parking, Inner London

Mr. Shepherd: asked the Minister of Transport whether he has considered the report of the Sub-Committee on Parking in Inner London sent up by the London and Home Counties Transport Advisory Committee; what are its main recommendations; and what action he proposes to take.

Mr. Barnes: The Sub-Committee have not yet reported. They are still taking evidence but I hope to receive their report by about the end of the year.

Municipal Car Parks

Mr. Shepherd: asked the Minister of Transport if he will seek power to make grants towards the cost of municipal car parks in view of the increasing number of vehicles on the road.

Mr. Barnes: I realise the importance of municipal car parks as helping towards the solution of the problem of traffic con-

gestion, but I cannot commit myself to seeking the power suggested by the hon. Member.

Highways, Western Europe (Committee)

Mr. Thurtle: asked the Minister of Transport why no British Government representative is serving on the ad hoc working party appointed by the Sub-Committee on Road Transport of the Inland Transport Committee, and set up by the Economic Commission for Europe, for the purpose of implementing the highway construction programme for Western Europe approved by the Commission; and whether, in view of the importance of the international development of roads, steps will be taken to provide for the representation of this country.

Mr. Barnes: It is the policy of His Majesty's Government to play a full part in the work of the Inland Transport Committee of the Economic Commission for Europe at Geneva. My hon. Friend will appreciate, however, that international road traffic between this country and the Continent is on a small scale compared with that between the countries of continental Europe. The agenda of the meeting of the particular ad hoc working party to which my hon. Friend refers did not appear to me to justify the attendance of a representative from my Department.

Mr. Thurtle: Does not my right hon. Friend think that the future importance of the highways of Western Europe justifies his Department in showing a rather more lively interest in the matter?

Mr. Barnes: We do take a lively interest, but when I considered the two main items of the agenda I did not think it worth either the time or expense of sending a representative.

Winchester-Southampton Road

Mr. Peter Smithers: asked the Minister of Transport how long work has been in progress upon the recent alteration to the Winchester to Southampton road at the Compton road junction; and what has been the cost of the said work.

Mr. Barnes: This work has been in progress for one year and ten months and has cost about £17,300. It should be completed in November and the final cost will be about £18,800.

Oral Answers to Questions — MINISTRY OF SUPPLY

Atomic Energy Documents (Theft)

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: asked the Minister of Supply whether he has any statement to make as to the loss of documents relating to atomic energy by an officer of his Department at Euston Station on 8th August.

Sir J. Mellor: asked the Minister of Supply what action he has taken with regard to the loss on 8th August of secret papers by an official of his Department; why such papers were left unattended in a railway train; and why several hours elapsed between the loss at Euston Station and the first information to Scotland Yard.

The Minister of Supply (Mr. G. R. Strauss): A suitcase belonging to an official of my Department and containing, besides personal effects, a few documents on atomic energy was stolen from a railway carriage at Euston Station on 8th August. The official at once reported the loss to the station staff and to the railway police. The suitcase was recovered within two days; the documents, none of which contained any information of value to a potential enemy, were undisturbed. The railway police carried out their investigations promptly and efficiently and the matter was reported to Scotland Yard as soon as it was known that they had failed to recover the case.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether he has any information to show in whose hands these documents were during the two days concerned?

Mr. Strauss: Yes. The suitcase was taken by the thief to a hotel bedroom. When he opened the case and saw some documents dealing with atomic energy apparently he took fright and disappeared, leaving the documents and the case behind.

Sir J. Mellor: As the official missed the suitcase at Euston, why did he not report the loss of the secret papers until he arrived at Warrington?

Mr. Strauss: He reported it immediately to the police at Euston and it was hoped that the case would be found in the train. When it was not found the loss

was reported when the train arrived at Warrington. The station police were informed immediately, however, but they did not think it necessary at that moment, particularly in view of the fact that the documents were not of a really secret nature, to inform Scotland Yard.

Sir J. Mellor: Is it not a fact that no report was made by the official of the loss of the secret papers to the police at Euston and that nothing was said to the police about the loss of the secret papers until he reached Warrington?

Mr. Strauss: The station police were informed but they were told that the papers were not of a very secret nature.

Brigadier Medlicott: Could the Minister say whether any disciplinary action has been taken against this official?

Mr. Strauss: The man has been admonished.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: Is this gentleman in the employ of the Secret Service?

Royal Ordnance Factories (Civilian Work)

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: asked the Minister of Supply how far the Royal ordnance factories are still manufacturing articles for sale for civilian use.

Mr. G. R. Strauss: Civil work at the Royal ordnance factories is now at an annual rate of about £2 million.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether steps have been taken to reduce it?

Mr. Strauss: It has gradually been reduced during the last two years, but we still desire to do a certain amount of civil work to keep going and active certain Royal ordnance factories for which we have no orders at the moment.

Colonel Gomme-Duncan: Should there be any slackness at Royal ordnance factories in view of the necessity of rearmament?

Mr. Strauss: There are certain Royal ordnance factories which have not sufficient armament orders at the moment to keep them going fully. It may be that orders will come later.

Factories (Russian Representatives' Visits)

Mr. Donner: asked the Minister of Supply to which factories Russian agents have had access during 1950.

Wing Commander Hulbert: asked the Minister of Supply how many factories, where Government contracts of a secret nature are being carried out, are authorised to admit technical representatives of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics.

Mr. G. R. Strauss: Several thousand industrial firms hold contracts for defence work for my Ministry. Of these, a very large proportion undertake, in addition, work with which my Department has no concern. I cannot say which of them have been visited by Russian representatives in connection with this side of their work. I can, however, say that no visits involving access to information of defence significance have been made by Russian purchasing agents or technical representatives to any of our contractors.

Mr. Donner: How can the Minister give that assurance when he knows very well the names of the firms which have been involved?

Mr. Strauss: I have just said that I know of no case, and I am perfectly certain that no Russian representative or agent has been to any firm which is carrying out for us any work of a secret nature.

Wing Commander Hulbert: Does not the right hon. Gentleman think that in the present circumstances his Department should keep a very careful check on the movements, visits and activities of Russian members of their alleged trade delegations?

Mr. Strauss: I can assure the hon. and gallant Member that the arrangements for defending the secrecy of any secret contract which we give to industrial firms are very tight indeed.

Captain Ryder: Would it not be better to restrict these activities until reciprocal facilities are granted by Russia?

Mr. Strauss: The arrangements for inspection have been made with the Russian purchasers by private firms and have nothing to do with us.

Captain Ryder: Is there no control over it?

Mr. Braine: Is it not a fact that certain of the firms engaged on contract work for the Soviet Union, and whose plants are open to inspection by Russian agents, have made representations to the Ministry of Supply about the security angle; that these representations were made long before the disclosures by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition; and that they have been ignored?

Mr. Strauss: If the hon. Member is referring to the allegations made on behalf of Craven Brothers, I would point out that that company has no secret contracts from us at all.

Mr. S. Silverman: Can my right hon. Friend say whether there is anything in the slightest degree unusual or in the slightest degree sinister in a contractual arrangement which enables the purchaser of a complicated machine to inspect it before he takes delivery?

Mr. Strauss: It is normal commercial procedure.

Wing Commander Hulbert: Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that certain secret equipment which is being made for his Department is of such a character that it is impossible to keep it secret from the works, which are accessible to members of the Russian delegation?

Mr. Strauss: If the hon. and gallant Member has some specific case in mind I will willingly look into it. I do not know what it is.

Defence Work (Factory Staffs)

Mr. A. R. W. Low: asked the Minister of Supply whether security precautions taken in atomic and other factories of defence importance include a check on the background of all employees; and how this check is made in the case of men who lived previously in Ireland.

Mr. G. R. Strauss: Investigations are made into the reliability of all staff employed on secret work for my Department, including atomic energy research. It would be against the public interest for me to go into more detail.

Mr. Low: Without imputing the loyalty of these Irishmen, may I ask whether the Minister is quite satisfied that he is able to obtain enough information about the


background of the employees coming from Ireland, who have been in this country for only a very short time previously?

Mr. Strauss: We are very careful in looking into the past record and the reliability of people going into secret defence work and unless we are quite sure about it, we do not employ them.

Copper (Price)

Sir H. Williams: asked the Minister of Supply for what reason his Department increased the price of copper by £16 per ton on Tuesday, 22nd August, and reduced it by the same amount on Thursday, 24th August; and if he is aware that these sudden changes created great industrial dislocation.

Mr. G. R. Strauss: The United States export price, on which our buying prices are based, went up by 2 cents on 21st August. In accordance with the policy of keeping United Kingdom selling prices in line with those in the American market the Ministry of Supply selling price was increased from 22nd August by the sterling equivalent of £16 a ton. The American price went down again on 23rd August, and the Ministry of Supply price was reduced accordingly the following morning. If the Exchequer is to be adequately protected, it is not possible to give prior notice of changes of this kind.

Sir H. Williams: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that enormous inconvenience was caused to many firms who had to print notices indicating the effect on the prices of their commodities, as the change back to the original price was made in many cases before they could post them?

Mr. Strauss: I appreciate that these rapid fluctuations in price are very inconvenient, but industry has said that they are fully satisfied with the policy of keeping our price in conformity with American price. If that changes rapidly we have to change ours.

Mr. John Grimston: asked the Minister of Supply what proposals he has to compensate exporters of heavy electrical equipment, who need to cover their requirements many months ahead, for having to pay the premium on their forward purchases of copper, which he has imposed in order to prevent speculation.

Mr. G. R. Strauss: The premium was imposed to protect the Exchequer from the results of heavy forward buying at a time of great uncertainty about future buying prices. The matter is under discussion with industry to see whether an alternative method can be found which would be more acceptable to the trade while providing the necessary protection to the Exchequer.

Mr. Grimston: Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that this fine on forward purchases of metal is no deterrent whatever to the speculator but is a serious burden on productive industry, on which the export trade depends?

Mr. Strauss: It is inevitable, if it is likely, or almost certain, that the price is going to rise rapidly the next day, that the purchaser should pay a premium to cover the Exchequer against a very substantial loss which would otherwise be imposed upon it by substantial buying on that day.

Mr. Erroll: Why was not the trade consulted before the premium system was introduced?

Mr. Strauss: It would have been exceedingly awkward for the trade because if, after consultation, someone, perhaps perfectly properly and innocently, bought large quantities, it might be suggested that it was as a result of the prior information given by us.

Mr. Walter Fletcher: Does not the discount in other world markets in metal impose an extra burden on the manufacturer here if he has to pay a premium?

Mr. Strauss: The hon. Gentleman will appreciate that this facility of buying considerably ahead is confined to purchasers in this country. American consumers have not that facility at all.

Mr. Grimston: Does the right hon. Gentleman's answer mean that he is considering imposing this forward buying premium only from day to day and not, as it is at the moment, permanently?

Mr. Strauss: I am considering the whole problem, which is a very real one, with the industry to see whether we can find a solution which is satisfactory to all of us.

Sheet Steel (Allocation)

Mr. Parker: asked the Minister of Supply on what ground the quota of sheet steel to Briggs Motor Bodies has recently been reduced, with consequent laying-off of workers.

Mr. Strauss: My Department makes only a small allocation of sheet steel to this company for the maintenance of plant. This allocation has not been reduced.

Mr. Bing: Is there anything further it is possible for my right hon. Friend to do, because this is a very serious problem in the area of my hon. Friend the Member for Dagenham (Mr. Parker), who asked the Question, and in my area?

Mr. Strauss: I am informed that out of a total labour force of about 9,000 people, 100 have been stood off, and the company does not expect to stand off any more; but, anyhow, the standing off has nothing to do with any action or inaction of my Department.

Oral Answers to Questions — BUILDING WORK (BUSINESS PREMISES)

Mr. Shurmer: asked the Minister of Works if he is aware that, despite the unsatisfactory position of housing in Birmingham, building work on factories, shops, large city stores and projects other than housing is increasing, thereby using up much labour and materials and exercising an adverse effect on house building; and if he will make immediate inquiries into this state of affairs.

The Minister of Works (Mr. Stokes): During the last four months for which we have figures the number of men engaged on new housing work in Birmingham increased by 21 per cent. compared with 9 per cent. increase in the number engaged on other new projects. Most of the new factory building in the Birmingham area is concerned with products for defence or for the export drive, and the two large stores form part of the approved scheme for the rebuilding of blitzed cities.

Mr. Shurmer: Is my right hon. Friend aware that on the list of applicants awaiting houses there are something over 50,000 people, and that there is great

resentment that building proceeds on large stores, such as those of Marshall and Snelgrove, second-hand car dealers, C. & A. Modes, etc., which could be left undone yet, and the materials and men used to build houses for the people?

Mr. Stokes: The fact is that the building force on new housing in Birmingham has gone up from 2,500 to over 3,000 in the last four months. It is a great mistake to assume that because people are engaged on other forms of construction they would be suitable for the building of new houses.

Mr. Geoffrey Lloyd: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this notable increase in the building force available for the building of houses in Birmingham is the result of the Unionist Party's coming to power on the City Council?

Mr. Shurmer: I could answer that. Is my right hon. Friend prepared to make a tour of Birmingham in the very near future to see the type of work being done and whether it does delay house building?

Mr. Stokes: But for the sudden and unexpected recall of Parliament I should have been there already. I am hoping to arrange a visit at a very early date.

Mr. Geoffrey Lloyd: Would the right hon. Gentleman give the same good advice to his colleague, the Minister of Health?

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: asked the Minister of Works whether, in view of the need to concentrate building labour and materials in house-building and essential works, he will consider the cancellation of licences already granted for shops and office premises.

Mr. Stokes: No, Sir. Licences are granted very sparingly for new work to shops and office premises, and only where outstanding evidence of need can be shown.

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: Does my right hon. Friend mean that no matter what change takes place in the economic situation he will consider no withdrawal of the 230-odd licences he has granted for shop and office premises in Brixton? Is he aware that, in fact, in Brixton nobody wants this fantastic folly at the present time?

Mr. Stokes: That is a different question. I certainly did not mean to imply that I am immutable or unchangeable, or whatever the word is. However, having granted the licences it would seem to me crass stupidity to cancel them without adequate reason for doing so.

Oral Answers to Questions — COAL INDUSTRY

Opencast Mining

Miss Irene Ward: asked the Minister of Fuel and Power, having regard to the importance of adequate supplies of coal to our defence commitments, on what grounds opencast coal mining is to be wound up by 1953.

The Minister of Fuel and Power (Mr. Philip Noel-Baker): The policy of His Majesty's Government for the opencast production of coal during the years 1950 to 1953 was explained by my right hon. Friend the Minister of State for Economic Affairs in a public statement issued on 19th January last, of which I am sending the hon. Lady a copy. The statement was made after careful consideration, and it would be premature to anticipate any changes that may or may not be required.

Miss Ward: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that I attended the Debate and heard what was said and that, therefore, there is no need to send me a copy? Was the statement made with the full concurrence of the Cabinet, and are we to assume, therefore, that there will be a vast increase in the output of deep-mined coal?

Mr. Noel-Baker: The statement was not made in Debate but while Parliament was in Recess, in January last. Therefore, I think the hon. Lady would do well to study it.

Dr. King: Is my right hon. Friend aware that, when we had the Debate on this question of opencast coal mining eight weeks ago, in the House, the Opposition were advocating the almost complete winding-up of opencast coal mining by 1951, and that among those who took part in the Debate was the hon. Lady?

Miss Ward: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there was a Debate on opencast coal mining shortly before the House rose, in which I took part, and that the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Fuel and Power gave the

date 1953? Is he aware that I am anxious to know whether that date will be kept?

Mr. Noel-Baker: I think the hon. Lady would do well to study the statements made, not only in January last but also by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary, because in her Question she has misquoted it.

Stocks

Miss Ward: asked the Minister of Fuel and Power if he will make a full statement on the present position of coal stocks; and what steps are being taken to remedy the serious situation already disclosed.

Mr. P. Noel-Baker: The building up of coal stocks for the winter is proceeding steadily, and the rate is likely to increase, now that the miners' holidays are at an end. It is the Government's firm intention that total stocks shall reach the planned level of 16.5 million tons before the winter starts, and all necessary steps to this end are being taken.

Miss Ward: What was the purpose of the very alarming speech made by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Fuel and Power at Sedgefield recently, in which he said we were losing ground with regard to stocking?

Mr. Noel-Baker: I am glad to say that things are a little better now, but it is always well to be aware of it if one has a big task to fulfil.

Air Commodore Harvey: When does the right hon. Gentleman expect winter to start?

Mr. Noel-Baker: That is a matter of opinion. The technical date is 31st October. I am not sure we shall reach 16.5 million tons by then, but I am sure we shall reach it very shortly afterwards.

Sir H. Williams: How much are stocks this year below those we held this time last year?

Mr. Noel-Baker: The build-up, of course, is different this year because the miners' holidays have been staggered over a different period. Stocks are about a million tons less than they were last year, but only 300,000 tons below the planned target figure.

Domestic Supplies, Peterborough

Mr. Harmar Nicholls: asked the Minister of Fuel and Power if he will review the allocation of house coal to Peterborough district for the winter period, 1950–51, which as it now stands is 49 tons per week less than the corresponding period, 1949–50, whilst the number of consumer registrations have in the meantime increased by 689.

Mr. P. Noel-Baker: I think the hon. Member is under a misapprehension. The final allocation made to the district of Peterborough for the winter of 1949–50 was 1,262 tons per week; the allocation for the coming winter is 1,279 tons, that is, 17 tons more per week, not 49 tons less.

Mr. Nicholls: Is the Minister aware that the distributors in the area have figures which are completely different in their conclusion from those which have been given by the Minister? Is he further aware that the permitted quantity shows far too great disparity from the actual allocation, since the general public expect the 30 cwt. as announced, and are not getting that allocation at the moment?

Mr. Noel-Baker: I have always made it clear to the House that we have not got as much coal for domestic use as we desire, but I hope Peterborough will be getting a little more this year than last year. Among other things, domestic consumers in the country have stocked up 750,000 tons more this summer than they did last year.

Exports

Miss Ward: asked the Minister of Fuel and Power on what general principles he takes decisions on the amount of coal allowed to be exported.

Mr. P. Noel-Baker: In view of the international balance of payments position of the country, and the importance of coal in the negotiation of trade agreements with foreign countries, the Government seek to provide as much coal for export as they rightly can. The amount actually provided in any period must depend, in part, on the total supplies available and, in part, on the level of the home demand for essential purposes.

Miss Ward: May I ask the Minister whether the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Fuel and Power was re-

flecting the view of the Cabinet when he stated that the export of coal abroad might have to stop, owing to the lack of stocks in this country?

Mr. Noel-Baker: It is, of course, true that the internal demand for coal, thanks to full employment and increased productivity, is increasing very rapidly.

Miss Ward: Which authority, the Cabinet or the National Coal Board, decides what allocations are made?

Mr. Noel-Baker: The Government decide how much coal should be exported, and we want to export as much as we rightly can.

Mr. De la Bère: What happens if you wrongly cannot?

Oral Answers to Questions — PETROL SUPPLIES

Consumption Level

Mr. Charles Ian Orr-Ewing: asked the Minister of Fuel and Power what percentage increase there has been in petrol consumption since de-rationing; and whether he anticipates any difficulty in supplies being maintained at the required level.

Mr. P. Noel-Baker: During the 14 weeks which have elapsed since petrol was de-rationed, the oil companies have delivered 19 per cent. more into consumption than they did in the 14 weeks before. Part of this increase is due to seasonal and other causes not connected with de-rationing. I am glad to assure the hon. Member that the present rate of supplies is sufficient to meet the demand.

Farmers (Storage)

Mr. Bossom: asked the Minister of Fuel and Power if he will reconsider the question of petrol storage for farmers who have fewer than five vehicles, to enable them to save the time now wasted in collecting it in small quantities.

Mr. P. Noel-Baker: The distribution of petrol for farmers, as for other customers, is done by commercial companies, who decide for themselves what methods they will use.

Mr. Bossom: Is the Minister agreeable to allowing this distribution to all farmers who have sufficient storage, and not only to those who have more than five vehicles?

Mr. Noel-Baker: I understand that, under the arrangements in force before, eight companies had delivered to all farmers who have bulk storage capacity, but I could not give instructions to the companies to deliver direct to individual consumers.

Mr. Geoffrey Lloyd: Would the right hon. Gentleman make it quite clear that there is no official limitation on the right of private storage?

Mr. Noel-Baker: There is no official control at all. I do not know whether the Opposition now suggest that there should be some official control, but there is none, and I should be very reluctant to impose it.

Mr. Bossom: Will the Minister give an assurance that he will have no objection to stocking up by farmers who have bulk storage capacity, if the companies will let them have the petrol?

Mr. Noel-Baker: I have no objection, but I can well conceive that deliveries to individual consumers might mean a wasteful use of transport. If farmers have a grievance, they can take it to the Oil Consumers' Council, on which the National Farmers' Union is represented.

Oral Answers to Questions — POWER STATION, PETERBOROUGH

Mr. H. Nicholls: asked the Minister of Fuel and Power why his Department has used material and labour suitable for house building in erecting a wall of rustic brick, measuring nine inches by eight feet and 700 yards in length at River Lane, Coal Yard, Peterborough; why it was necessary to use expensive facing-bricks; and why an expanded metal fence at much less cost was not used.

Mr. P. Noel-Baker: The British Electricity Authority tell me that the extension of their power station at Peterborough has required the construction of two new sections of wall. One section of 300 yards was needed as a retaining wall for an embankment; it is made of concrete and faced with brick. The other, 420 yards in length, is made of brick; it is needed to enclose the coal store, and to prevent tive for either of the purposes in view, the coal dust from blowing about the town. I am advised that walls of expanded metal would not have been effec-

Mr. Nicholls: Is the Minister aware that, as regards the original wall acting as a retainer a concrete base had already been erected, which was quite sufficient for this purpose, and that the facing bricks used in addition were quite unnecessary from that point of view? In view of the shortage of houses in Peterborough, and the shortage of bricklayers and of rustic bricks, the provision of this unnecessary brickwork seems to be a public scandal.

Mr. Noel-Baker: The construction of these walls and the choice of the bricks were decided upon in consultation with the Peterborough Corporation, and the plan adopted, conforms with the Corporation's scheme for improving the amenities of their river front.

Mr. Nicholls: Did final approval have to be given by the Minister?

Mr. Noel-Baker: Technically, yes, but I should never have dreamt of stopping it.

Mr. Nicholls: Why does the Minister try to fob it off on Peterborough Corporation?

Oral Answers to Questions — UNITED NATIONS DAY (OBSERVANCE)

Mr. Somerset de Chair: asked the Prime Minister what steps His Majesty's Government is taking to ensure that, in view of the importance of the United Nations for the whole effort to preserve world peace and resist aggression, there is this year a nation-wide observance of United Nations Day.

The Prime Minister (Mr. Attlee): His Majesty's Government recognise the importance of ensuring a nation wide observance of United Nations Day on 24th October. They are co-operating fully with the United Nations Information Centre in London and the United Nations Association of Great Britain and Northern Ireland in plans to this end. One hundred thousand United Nations posters are. for example, being produced and distributed throughout the country. A circular is being sent out by the Ministry of Education calling the attention of all schools to the significance of the occasion.

Mr. de Chair: Would the Prime Minister invite the co-operation of the B.B.C. on this occasion in order to give


nation-wide publicity to United Nations Day, in view of the successful resistance of the United Nations in Korea?

The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir; plans are under consideration for working with the B.B.C. in this matter.

Mr. Eden: Would the Prime Minister accept from me an assurance that we should endorse an arrangement of this kind on this occasion?

Sir H. Williams: Would the Prime Minister give the number of members of the United Nations who are not, as yet, fighting in Korea?

Mr. Clement Davies: Is the Prime Minister aware that his answer will meet with the approval of all parties, and I am sure of the whole country, since it is more than ever necessary at this time that this day should be observed by all nations?

Oral Answers to Questions — NEW ZEALAND (DAIRY PRODUCTS)

Mr. Hurd: asked the Prime Minister if he is aware of the dissatisfaction expressed in New Zealand by Ministers of the Crown and leaders of the dairy industry at the course of trade negotiations between the British and New Zealand Governments; and if he will send an official message to the Prime Minister of New Zealand assuring the people of the Dominion that this country means to pursue the policy of Imperial Preference.

The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir, but I would point out that agreement has now been reached on a formula which will ensure an uninterrupted supply of butter and cheese from New Zealand to the United Kingdom during the 1950–51 season. As regards the second part of the Question, I would refer the hon. Member to the reply already given to him by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Food in answer to Question No. 1. From this he will see that it would be a misapprehension to suppose that any question of Imperial Preference arises.

Mr. Hurd: Has the Prime Minister overlooked the statement by a Minister in the New Zealand Parliament, on 31st August, that New Zealand believes in Imperial Preference and wonders what the attitude of His Majesty's Government is? If there is any doubt should not the Prime Minister immediately remove it?

The Prime Minister: I do not think there is any doubt. At any rate, there are Ministers present this week discussing trade questions, and I could ask them.

Oral Answers to Questions — INTERNATIONAL SITUATION

Mr. Black: asked the Prime Minister whether, in light of the grave international situation, he will consult with the leaders of the Churches as to the calling of a national day of prayer.

The Prime Minister: I have considered the hon. Member's suggestion, but cannot see my way to adopt it.

Mr. Black: Will the Prime Minister bear in mind the importance of keeping before the nation the moral and spiritual implications of the struggle in which the nation is engaged? Is not this one of the most effective ways of doing so?

The Prime Minister: With the first part of the Question I entirely agree, though I do not agree with the second part. There is a danger in the constant multiplication of these days.

Mr. S. Silverman: May I ask my right hon. Friend if his attention has been drawn to a statement made by the Foreign Secretary in New York that the international situation today is no graver than it was a few months ago; and does he not agree that it would be unfortunate if any step were taken that would increase the alarm and tension in the world today?

Mr. Keeling: On a point of order. May I suggest that those hon. Members whose Questions are not likely to be reached by 3.30 should immediately go to the Table and get them postponed until tomorrow, when they are sure to be reached?

Mr. Black: asked the Lord President of the Council whether, in view of the worsening international situation, it is proposed to abandon, postpone or modify the arrangements for the Festival of Britain, 1951.

The Lord President of the Council (Mr. Herbert Morrison): The main purpose of the Festival of Britain is to demonstrate to the world Britain's achievements and strength, past and to come—a very proper undertaking at this time; and I am confident that the House will take the view


that the country should not be deflected from this just and peaceful purpose because of the threat to peace from others.

Sir H. Williams: As the machine tool industry has been invited to supply only one tool as its contribution, would the right hon. Gentleman consider transferring one from Craven Bros., Manchester?

Brigadier Medlicott: Would this not be an opportunity to demonstrate to the world that we can be festive in spite of Socialism?

Oral Answers to Questions — CENTRAL OFFICE OF INFORMATION (EXPENDITURE)

Mr. De la Bère: asked the Lord President of the Council whether, having regard to the financial crisis with which this country is at present faced, and with a view to curtailing expenses, he will consider decreasing the expenditure of the Central Office of Information forthwith, by retaining only such part of the organisation as relates to reference libraries and other records of public value.

Mr. H. Morrison: The suggestion of the hon. Member would not be a

sound economy. The system by which the Central Office undertakes common production services for the Ministerial Department is itself an economy. But we are always examining the expenditure on Government information services and the recommendations of the Select Committee on Estimates, contained in its Fifth Report, are being considered now.

Mr. De la Bère: Will the right hon. Gentleman try to separate the false from the true and the real from the unreal? Does he not realise the enormous amount of Government expenditure on the Central Office of Information? Why does he not use the same money to help home food production, and do something really worth while?

Mr. Morrison: These supplementaries are very irrelevant. If the work of the Central Office of Information were done otherwise, it would cost more. As a matter of fact, the estimate for the home information service is down by £1 million and that for the overseas service by £220,000. The C.O.I, nett estimate shows a reduction of £709,000, or 20 per cent. The hon. Gentleman is most ungrateful.

Mr. De la Bère: Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will have a talk with me afterwards.

WAR MATERIALS (EXPORT)

3.30 p.m.

Mr. Oliver Lyttelton: I beg to move,
That this House urges His Majesty's Government to suspend the export of heavy machine tools and strategic raw materials that would add to the war potential of possible aggressors or which we or our Allies require for our own defence.
The terms of the Government Amendment on the Order Paper make it unnecessary for me to develop this subject as fully as I should otherwise have done, and I hope that I shall only have to crave your patience, Mr. Speaker, for a comparatively short time.
We on this side of the House are glad that our action has led the Government at least to make their position considerably clearer. They have gone, not all the way, but part of the way to resolve doubts and fears about our exports to East of the Iron Curtain. These doubts are by no means confined to the numerous manufacturers and exporters concerned in this country. It is more than this: Abroad, the British attitude has been widely misunderstood, and I do not doubt that it has, on occasions, been misrepresented. At least, this Debate will help those in the Dominions and more particularly those in the United States who are concerned to defend British policy in these matters.
I suppose that it is unlikely that the Government will move a vote of thanks or take this opportunity to congratulate the Opposition for having raised this subject today, and, as they are unlikely to do so, we wish to congratulate ourselves upon the success which has attended the pressure brought to bear upon the Government by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition, and which has attended our action in putting down our Motion. However that may be, I do not suppose—although I cannot be sure—that it will be neccessary to divide the House this afternoon. I think that we should avoid a Division if we can, because the problems raised are vital to the national safety and are necessarily extremely delicate in themselves. Our national course will not be made easier by violent controversy now that the Government's attitude has been somewhat clarified. But whether this kind of agreement is to be achieved or not

depends, I think, on whether I can elicit some satisfactory replies to two or three simple and straightforward questions which I feel that it is my duty to put to the Government. So far as I can judge, the Government having gone thus far, should have little difficulty in conceding the points that I shall raise and in reassuring us upon them.
Before I come to them, I should like to begin at the end of the Government's Amendment and refer to the last sentence in it:
… while at the same time maintaining, to our mutual benefit, trade between the United Kingdom and Eastern Europe.
In their context—and I emphasise in their context—we agree with these words; once safeguards against the export of equipment or materials of direct use in war or the preparation for war have been laid down, trade between West and East should continue where it is of mutual advantage.
I find it necessary to refer to this matter at the outset because in a previous Debate in 1949, my right hon. Friends the Member for Saffron Walden (Mr. R. A. Butler) and for Bromley (Mr. H. Macmillan) had to rebut a suggestion or an insinuation that we on this side of the House were advocates of an economic blockade of Russia and the satellite countries. Of course normal trade, even if it excludes a range of special tools, equipment or materials can often be shown to be of potential advantage in war to the importing country; but we must not shut our eyes to the fact that normal trade sometimes, and in some ways, acts as a preventive to war.
I thought that any suggestions of economic blockade had been finally put to rest in 1949, but it seems—and I hope that I am not doing him an injustice—that the insinuation came to life again in the speech of the Minister for Economic Affairs last week. He used this language:
There is no point in cutting down our exports, breaking contracts and imposing economic blockades, and risking the delivery of vital supplies, if the only effect is that the orders go elsewhere to other countries."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 13th September, 1950; Vol. 478, c. 1136–7.]
Of course, at the best, this sentence only touches the fringe of the problem, and because other people may do foolish things


that is not a good reason for doing foolish things ourselves; nor because other sources of supply are open, is that a decisive argument why our own should not at least be regulated. If the Minister's words—and I agree that he may not have meant it—intended to fasten upon us a policy of economic blockade, it is as well that any such suggestion should be denied at the outset.
I now wish to put a number of points to the Government arising either out of our Motion or out of their Amendment. At the beginning of the Government's Amendment are these words:
… Approves the policy of His Majesty's Government in stopping, in all appropriate cases, the export of equipment and materials likely to be required for the defence programmes of this country, of the rest of the Commonwealth, and of the North Atlantic Powers.…
This appears to mean that we should only stop exports of, say, equipment if the equipment is needed by ourselves or by our Allies and associated countries for the Allies' defence programme. "Do we need it ourselves?" appears to be the test, and the only test in the Government's Amendment, which is to be applied. Surely, we cannot stop at that point. We must, in my submission, also be prepared to stop the export of certain specific and particular equipment or tools or materials on the grounds that they build up the war potential of possible aggressors in a direct way.
No doubt, if I may turn to an analogy it is a good reason for keeping a rifle in this country that you may wish to fire it off yourself; but there is another reason: you may wish to keep it in this country to prevent someone else firing it at you. Perhaps the words—and they are very favourite words in His Majesty's Civil Service—"in all appropriate cases" are intended to cover the point that I am now raising, but it may be that they are not. I should like some assurance that even if certain equipment or material is not needed by ourselves, but is direct war potential, then those tools or that equipment will not be exported.
I now come to some more detailed points, and I want in particular to refer to certain types of very heavy machine tools. The types I mean are, first of all, large vertical boring mills, which for all their name are frequently used for

machining the circumference of very large components. I have no doubt that many Members who have been interested in war production some time during the last war or since will have seen these vertical boring machines boring the circumference of a gun mounting when it is being prepared for the ball races to revolve the gun.
Large boring machines are a different subject, because the machine, as opposed to the mill, is the actual machine that bores the centre out of the gun. I shall also refer to planing machines for machining large flat surfaces—armour-plate and so forth—and very large types of centre lathes used for finishing and turning large circular forgings like guns. I want to make it quite clear that these mills are machines. It would not be true to say that these machines and mills can only be used in the manufacture of armaments, but the point is that they are its most directly useful war potential in the whole range of machine tools.
My first submission is that all the heavier types of these tools or machines should be placed upon the prohibited list, which means that they would require a licence before being exported. On 23rd March, 1949, considerable additions were made to the prohibited list, and vertical boring mills and surfacing and boring lathes above 10 inches height of centre were added to the list, but for some reason which I shall seek to discover later large planing machines and large centre lathes are today still not on the list. This is entirely illogical.
I have here a schedule of exports in the course of manufacture by Craven Bros, of Manchester for export to the U.S.S.R. and Poland. Members may wonder why this particular manufacturer's name comes up again. [HON. MEMBERS "Hear, hear."] I will tell them. The reason is that they are specialists in this type of heavy tool. In some instances, they and George Richards and Sons are the only manufacturers in the country equipped to make certain very heavy types of tool.
Turning to the schedule of exports to the U.S.S.R., the first four items are large boring mills. There are seven 7-foot, one 16-foot and four 12-foot diameter machines—that is, 12 boring mills in all. In spite of these mills having been on the prohibited list since 23rd March, 1949,


10 of these machines have been licensed for export. On the Polish list are 15 specially equipped vertical boring mills ranging from 8-foot diameter to the very big diameter of 30 feet. All these, or nearly all, have received licences.
Repeated inquiries by the makers asking whether these machines are to be exported when they are finished, or whether the licences are to be withdrawn, have so far elicited no reply, or no clear reply, from the Ministry of Supply. As recently as 2nd August, the makers were advised in writing that His Majesty's Government could not encourage them to refuse to complete the orders that they had accepted, and no other guidance, as far as I know, has been vouchsafed to them.
The next assurance I want to be given is whether all these machines—that is 27 vertical boring machines in all—12 for Russia and 15 for Poland—will be kept in this country and not exported, whether their export has already been licensed or not. I turn aside at this point to say that the Government Amendment would appear to make it quite clear that the 18-foot and 16-foot mills will not be exported but kept in this country for our own purposes, because, if my information is correct, these mills are urgently required by the Ministry of Supply for the re-equipment of the Royal Ordnance Factories or other factories in this country. Probably the others are equally wanted here, although on that I have not the information to support that suggestion.
I am suggesting that both the 18-foot and the 16-foot vertical boring mills are an urgent requirement of the Ministry of Supply at this moment. These mills are very big machines, and in consequence take a very long time to manufacture. I am informed that the earliest delivery to users in this country that can be given is two and a half to three years, if the present exports are permitted. If the exports are stopped, our own defence programme would have the benefit of these machines within six months. I ask the House to think what these implications are. I am seeking the assurance that not only the two big mills, which I believe are urgently wanted, but all the 27 mills I have described will be kept.
I now come back to the schedule of exports to Russia. The next item is two

10-foot by 8-foot by 20-foot planing machines. This is large-sized equipment used, among other things, for machining armour-plate. I should myself describe them—I hope with a due sense of responsibility—as falling into the category of direct war potential. They are not even on the prohibited list—no licence is required for their export, and any one making these machines can export them to Russia without a licence.
Can we be assured, first of all, that these machines will be placed on the prohibited list, and, secondly, that the export of these particular machines will be stopped, irrespective of the date upon which the order was booked by the manufacturers? I do not think the Government should have very much difficulty in saying "yes" to this question, since it would appear to most people, whether laymen or otherwise, to be utterly illogical to put vertical boring mills on the prohibited list and keep planing machines off the list. Therefore, may I have an answer to this question?
Lastly, I come on this particular part of my argument to an even more absurd case and an even greater anomaly. I refer to very large centre lathes. These are not on the list and no licence is required for their export, yet in the schedule of exports to Russia of this particular manufacturer are two 80-inch, one 60-inch and one 50-inch lathes, and two for Poland of rather smaller dimensions.
Perhaps I might remind Members that these lathes are so big that the biggest one, if it were put into this Chamber in which we are now sitting, would give precious little room to Members on either side of the House. I would remind the House that this dimension of 80 inches is the dimension between the centre of the spindle to the top of the bed-plate. In other words, the swing of the lathe, as the term goes, would enable this lathe to turn a circular forging of 160 inches, which is rather over 13 feet in diameter—a tremendous machine. These lathes spell to me at any rate in present circumstances only one word—armaments. They are not even on the prohibited list, and I ask that they should be placed upon that list at once, and that the export of these particular lathes in process of manufacture should be stopped.
I hope that I have shown that at least some further elucidation and a clear-cut statement of policy is called for, since it appears to me to be just sheer nonsense or else muddle to put verticle boring machines on the prohibited list, whilst leaving the planers and those larger centre lathes entirely free to be exported. It is a curious principle that what is forbidden in the verticle should be permitted in the horizontal, and one which would carry us very far in human affairs if applied in other directions.
Before I sit down I must say a few words about materials. Very nearly all the materials in question—and this is a much more difficult part of the subject—have as many uses in peaceful production as they have in war. Rubber is an obvious example. Here I think the best test to apply is how greatly we want these supplies ourselves. It is surely unwise, to say the least of it, for the Allies to be stock piling certain materials and have no control whatever over purchases made by Russia and the satellite countries in the allied countries, which produce at least a high proportion of these very same materials.
The criterion here should first be our own needs, and that I think is the criterion in this particular section of the subject which is covered by the Government Amendment. Malaya produces about 40 per cent. of the world's rubber. Russia can buy enough supplies for all ordinary uses outside Malaya, but surely we should take some steps to earmark Malayan rubber chiefly for our own stock pile and any stock pile which the United States may form, and she is stock piling natural rubber at this moment. I am most anxious not to produce any argument which will raise prejudices, but there does seem to be an anomaly in exporting Malayan rubber to Communist countries without any attempts at control, when our men at this moment are laying down their lives to defend and protect the rubber plantations against the Communists. That is an undeniable proposition.
I admit that the more the question of raw materials is studied, the more difficult it becomes to draw a line between one use and another so as to define the limits of what ought to be prohibited or what ought not. Very often it is a quantative matter. Although it has nothing to do

with the present subject, sulphate of ammonia is an essential part of agriculture up to a certain quantity, but over that quantity it is one of the ingredients of high explosives. Often quantity will give some guide, and another time reliance can be placed on the scarce commodity of commonsense or common-sense judgment. I can go this far, that I agree with the Government that the first test, if not the final test, is if we need these raw materials for our own need and that of our Allies and associates.
I have two more things to say. The first concerns raw materials and their stock piling. The time seems long overdue in many cases when we should set up some kind of clearing house or combined resources board amongst the re-arming countries to prevent a scramble for scarce supplies, and to decide in broad lines what supplies we can afford to export to the rest of the world. This is not only a question of the U.S.S.R. and her satellites, but it will, of course, cover exports to South America.
I want to end by recapitulating the questions I asked earlier on the subject of equipment. First, can we be assured that the further test—namely, what may be useful as direct war potential to an aggressor, will be applied to goods and equipment here, so that we may retain those tools and this equipment here whether we happen to be short of that particular piece of equipment or tool or not? Secondly, can we be assured that the export of these 27 large verticle boring mills, most of which have already been licenced, will be stopped? Thirdly, can we be assured that large-scale planing machines will forthwith be placed on the prohibited list, and that the export of the partially finished machines will be stopped? Fourthly, can we be assured that very large centre lathes above a certain dimension, that is to say a bigger range of these lathes, will be added to the prohibited list, and, in particular, exports of the particular machines which I have described will be stopped forthwith?
In conclusion, I hope I have shown that there are sufficient anomalies and illogicalities to justify a description of Government policy in these matters as, at least, very confused, if not in certain cases positively nonsensical. Therefore, I urge them with all the sincerity and force that


I can command to make a thorough overhaul of all the methods, measures and regulations which are used to handle this delicate but nevertheless deadly subject.

3.58 p.m.

The President of the Board of Trade (Mr. Harold Wilson): I beg to move, to leave out from "House," to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof:
approves the policy of His Majesty's Government in stopping, in all appropriate cases, the export of equipment and materials likely to be required for the defence programmes of this country, of the rest of the Commonwealth, and of North Atlantic Treaty Powers, and, in consultation with those countries, in continuing and, where necessary, extending the controls on the export of equipment and materials of military value, while at the same time maintaining, to our mutual benefit, trade between the United Kingdom and Eastern Europe.
The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Aldershot (Mr. Lyttelton) began with what was an unwarrantable assumption that no Government spokesman on this side of the House would be likely to offer him any congratulations. I should like immediately to put him right on that by offering my congratulations on the way in which he has approached this subject this afternoon. I think the dulcet tones in which he dealt with it were in marked contrast to the more strident tones of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Woodford (Mr. Churchill) in a recent political broadcast.
I am glad that the right hon. Member for Aldershot took the line he did in attempting to avoid party conflict in this matter in the House this evening. No doubt he was wise in that decision, because I am sure that, had he attempted to make this a party issue, a number of my hon. Friends would have been rushing to the Library to dig up some information of which perhaps he would not have liked the House to be reminded, of shipments of strategic materials in the past, especially in 1939. I am sure that we are all agreed that the right hon. Gentleman was right when he said that this subject was far too serious a matter to be the subject of debates of that kind.
I think the House also will be glad that he, with his great interest in trade matters—it was one of the many speeches he has made on this subject since the war and, indeed, before it—recognised the desirability of maintaining trade with Eastern Europe. I think there were many people

in this country—I am bound to confess I was one of them—who felt after hearing the right hon. Member for Woodford, both in a certain broadcast and his speech last week, that he was not so concerned with maintaining a legitimate amount of peaceful trade with Eastern Europe, and I am glad that the right hon. Member for Aldershot made at least his position clear this afternoon. I am sure that the House as a whole feels that we should maintain as much trade as is possible subject to the conditions which have been set out in the Amendment.
It is fair to say that hon. Members in all parts of the House have successively welcomed the steps which the Government have taken to develop trade with Eastern Europe. When I announced in the House in December, 1947, that we had reached agreement in principle with the Soviet Union about trade, that statement was welcomed—he went out of his way to do it—by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Warwick and Leamington (Mr. Eden), and even more warmly by the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Montgomery (Mr. C. Davies). When we debated the agreement in March, 1948, the right hon. Member for Aldershot, while critical of the financial provisions and even violent on the subject of the price arrangements, had no criticism of the fact that we were trying to develop trade with Eastern Europe. He said:
To be fair, I concede our crying need for these coarse grains for animal feedingstuffs."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 2nd March, 1948; Vol. 448" c. 219.]
Neither he at that time nor the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bournemouth,. East, and Christchurch (Mr. Bracken), nor anyone else in any part of the House, stressed the possible dangers from the strategic point of view of trade which might develop under the agreement. The same is true when the Anglo-Polish trade agreement of January, 1949, was published.
Since the Government will this evening ask the House to support a policy which includes the maintenance of trade with Eastern Europe, perhaps before I come to the other points dealt with by the right hon. Gentleman it would be right for me to indicate exactly what has been involved in this trade between Eastern Europe and this country. During 1948, 1949 and this year, Eastern Europe—I am excluding from that both Yugoslavia and Finland—


will have sent us 500,000 standards of sawn softwood timber, which is equivalent to the timber requirements of something like 340,000 houses. Since the beginning of 1948 we have already received from them 1,500,000 cubic feet of hardwood, 50,000 cubic fathoms of pit props and 11,000 cubic fathoms of pulp-wood, nearly one-fifth of our total imports. We have already received 1,600,000 tons of coarse grains from them, to the value of £38,000,000, and these have represented something like one-third of our total coarse grain feedingstuff imports over the three years in question. These are quite apart from our imports of bacon, eggs and other foodstuffs.
I think the House will agree that the bulk of these essential imports—I want to stress that they are essential imports—with the world supply situation as it has been and with our dollar position as it has been, we could not have got from other parts of the world.

Mr. Lyttelton: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman to complete the statement by explaining to the House that these imports far exceed the exports of this country to those territories?

Mr. Wilson: Yes, indeed. That is certainly true. That is a point which my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister made in his broadcast, and I think it is a point that the House should certainly bear in mind. I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman. I was genuinely glad to find—because I had had some worries about it—that there was in the right hon. Gentleman's speech no criticism of this trading policy. It would hardly be conceivable that even this Opposition could have made such lavish promises as they have about housing, the decontrol of softwood timber, feedingstuffs and so on if they had not been assuming at least a continuance of the present volume of trade with Eastern Europe. In the speeches of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and the Minister of State for Economic Affairs and in the Amendment—

Mr. Churchill: Will the right hon. Gentleman say what is the proportion of the imports which we receive to the exports which we send to the countries in question?

Mr. Wilson: I should want a few minutes to get the exact figures for the

right hon. Gentleman, but, as his right hon. Friend has already explained to him, by far the greater part of the imports we have had from Eastern Europe have been paid for not by goods which we have exported from this country or goods which we shall export from this country, but by sterling which will be spent in other countries—principally sterling area countries—in buying wool, rubber and other things.

Mr. Churchill: Is it as much as four-fifths?

Mr. Wilson: I should like to get the exact figures before committing myself. I had better explain that the figures have been changing quite considerably all the time, and the recent timber contract with the Soviet Union is very much affecting the total value of the imports which we have been having.

Mr. Henderson Stewart: The right hon. Gentleman has been talking about Eastern Europe. Do I take it that he means exclusively Russia and Poland?

Mr. Wilson: I said Eastern Europe excluding Yugoslavia and Finland, but although we have only had trade agreements with the Soviet Union, Poland and Czechoslovakia, there has been some volume of trade with Hungary and Roumania, and to a very small extent with Bulgaria, but, for reasons with which the House is familiar, trade with Hungary has been down to a very low figure indeed in recent months.

Mr. Logan: Surely the question of whether or not we may be in trading difficulties does not enter into the matter? What I am anxious about in regard to supplying heavy-weight tools of a character which can only be used for war purposes is that if there is any likelihood of danger for this country the Government will stop such goods going abroad.

Mr. Wilson: I gave way to my hon. Friend but it was really unnecessary because if he had waited a few moments more I should have explained to him that I was going on to deal with the successive steps which His Majesty's Government have taken to deal with the problem of shipments of goods of military value, steps taken with the general support of the House and always ahead


of and not in response to promptings from the Opposition. It was not as a result of promptings from the Opposition, for instance, that on 15th February, 1949, I announced a wide extension of our system of export controls. I should like to remind the House of the words which I used on that occasion because they have been the basis of our policy ever since:
The desirability of extending our export controls to cover a wider range of goods of potential military value from the point of view of our security interests is constantly under review by His Majesty's Government.
[Laughter.] I thought the right hon. Member for Woodford would enjoy that.

Mr. Churchill: The laughter came from my hon. Friends behind me.

Mr. Wilson: As a result of a recent examination of the whole position, it is intended to subject an additional range of goods to export control.
We did that without even waiting for a broadcast from the right hon. Member for Woodford.

Mr. Churchill: That is the only thing the Government did.

Mr. Wilson: This control will be operated in such a way that the goods in question, unless the subject of prior commitments, are not made available if this would be contrary to our security interests."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 15th February, 1949; Vol. 461, c. 149.]
I went on to explain that we were keeping in touch with the other Commonwealth Governments, their principal partners in Western Europe, and with the United States Government. That policy was accepted by the House at the time, and I have not been able to find that the Opposition at that time or subsequently until the last few days criticised my exclusion from the operation of this control goods which were the subject of prior commitments. I think the feeling of the House was very fairly expressed in a supplementary question by the noble Lord the Member for Dorset, South (Viscount Hinchingbrooke), when he asked on 24th March, 1949:
While … there is no desire in any part of the House to seal the Eastern and Western Frontiers irrevocably, can the right hon. Gentleman set a great many fears at rest by indicating a list of goods which it would be possible to send in exchange for what we receive from these countries which are not in the nature of war export?

I answered him by saying that he was right to stress this aspect of the matter. I went on:
We keep a very close watch on the kind of goods that should be sent to these countries."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 24th March, 1949; Vol. 463, c. 532.]
I also indicated that I was about to announce a list of goods which would not be sent. When I did announce that list on 31st March, 1949, there was again no criticism of the policy, or any suggestion that our control was not sufficiently far-reaching. The list we then announced covered some 51 items, apart, of course, from arms, ammunition and explosives which had always been subject to export control. The items that we added to the list at that time covered a great many of the heavy machine tools that are referred to in the Motion now before the House. They ranged from giant presses, and forging hammers of over 1,000 tons capacity, down to such items as electron microscopes.
The right hon. Gentleman has mentioned certain machine tools that he feels ought to have been on the list from the start. He put his argument very clearly. On that point I should like to say that very careful consideration was given to putting these particular machine tools on, and that the arguments which he has laid before the House this afternoon were very fully laid before the Ministry of Supply, I understood, by Craven Brothers, some 15 months ago, and they were considered. My hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Supply could, I think, explain better than I the reasons why they were excluded, but I can certainly give to the right hon. Gentleman the assurance that we will look at the list again. We are always examining it. We will certainly look at the list again, in the light of the remarks he has made this afternoon, to see whether these items ought to be included in the list.

Mr. Churchill: We do not want to disagree needlessly, but surely something better than "We will look at the list again" ought to be given as answer to the precise question whether this particular class of tool, which is certainly essential for war purposes, should continue not even to be licensed?

Mr. Wilson: I could not myself claim to be technically qualified to enter into a long argument with the right hon.


Gentleman about the particular machine tools in question, but, as I have explained, all the arguments that were put by the right hon. Gentleman this afternoon have been the subject of very detailed discussion, as the result of an approach particularly from the chairman of Craven Brothers, and I say that my hon. Friend, whose Department has been dealing with the technical aspect of this matter, will take up this point, if he is successful in catching your eye, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Churchill: Cannot the right hon. Gentleman give a plain answer on the point and say "Yes" or "No" whether tools are going out of the country to arm war potential of possible aggressors or are going to be kept in the country? We want to know.

Mr. Wilson: I am dealing with the point made by the right hon. Member for Aldershot that, in addition to the wide list of goods already covered, certain machines such as he has mentioned should be added to the list for security purposes. I am going to deal with the question whether any goods will be allowed out of the country which are already on the list, but the right hon. Gentleman has asked that the list should be extended. I have explained that those arguments have been very carefully considered, and I have said that they will be considered again. I have said that the Parliamentary Secretary will deal in detail with the technical reasons for the exclusion of these goods so far from the list.

Mr. Churchill: I must press this matter. Cannot the right hon. Gentleman say, as a result of the profound and very careful consideration that has been given, he tells us, to this matter, whether the answer is "Yes" or "No"?

Mr. Wilson: I have already explained that as a result of the profound technical consideration which was given to this matter last year and again this year it was decided that it was not necessary to add these particular items to the list. I have undertaken to give the right hon. Gentleman an assurance that the answer, which was then "No"—since the right hon. Member for Woodford wants the answer in those terms—will be reviewed, and that we will look at it again in the light of the remarks made by the right hon. Member for Aldershot this afternoon.

Mr. Churchill: Is not the right hon. Gentleman responsible?

Mr. Wilson: Perhaps I might continue with the steps that have been taken—

Mr. Henderson Stewart: rose—

Mr. Wilson: Perhaps if I dealt completely with the points raised by the right hon. Member for Aldershot then, after I have finished, if there is anything that the hon. Gentleman wants to ask me, I can try to deal with it

Mr. Stewart: Surely—

Mr. Wilson: Having introduced our controls, we subsequently got other countries to agree broadly to the list that we had introduced, and that list has been progressively extended as the agreement of other countries has been secured to particular items. I think the House would agree with me when I emphasise the importance of agreeing this list with our friends in Western Europe and elsewhere. Without that agreement, any action on our part could be, and almost certainly would be, frustrated by shipments of goods from some other country to the countries with which we were concerned.
Our experience on industrial diamonds, when we put control on before other countries followed suit, showed quite clearly how important it was to get that degree of consultation. That list has been kept under constant examination and discussion with our friends in Western Europe, in the Commonwealth and, of course, in the United States, in the light of the strategic and other advice that has been available to us. We took the lead a year ago in making arrangements for constant consultation with other countries on this matter of control of exports of strategic value, and, as a result of this consultation with the countries concerned, we have drawn up and maintained in force two export control lists.
There is List I, which now covers 119 items, including metal-working machinery, chemicals and so on, of which exports to the Soviet bloc are prohibited. List II covers goods which are subject to quantitative control. A trickle of supplies is allowed in this case, related to what ought to be the normal peace-time civilian use in the countries with which


we are concerned. These lists are constantly being amended or extended.
In the last few days we have been discussing with other countries concerned the addition of some 59 items for complete prohibition and 45 items for quantitative control. Many of the goods which we discussed are already subject to control in this country, so if international agreement is reached we shall be adding to our list a number somewhat smaller than will be added by other countries.

Mr. Lyttelton: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether, among those items will be the vertical boring mill, planing mills or the centre lathe? We are really without any answer on this point. I hope that I am not interrupting the right hon. Gentleman at the wrong moment, but I rather understood that he was going on to deal with the supply of materials. I have asked him specific questions and I shall continue to press for specific answers.

Mr. Wilson: I am hoping to deal with the points which the right hon. Gentleman has made, if he will allow me to proceed. I am not going on to materials until I have dealt much more fully with machine tools.
The events of this summer have naturally caused the Government to review our control policy, to make sure that we do not export equipment required for our own defence programme or the programmes of our associates in the North Atlantic Treaty organisation and, of course, in the Commonwealth. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and the Minister of State for Economic Affairs have both made it clear that in all appropriate cases we shall not hesitate to take over equipment needed by ourselves or by our allies. I should inform the House that I am advised by my right hon. and learned Friends that we already have all the necessary powers for this purpose.

Mr. Lyttelton: When are you going to use them?

Mr. Wilson: There is a considerable volume of capital equipment on order, not only for Eastern European countries but also for other countries, outside the Commonwealth and the North Atlantic Treaty organisation, equipment which, before the recent decision to step up our arms programme, we would not have required. Much of this may be required because much of the equipment on order for

Eastern Europe may now be wanted and, as my right hon. Friends have made clear, we shall not hesitate to requisition any that we need.
The Motion which the right hon. Gentleman has moved draws a sharp distinction between equipment and materials needed by ourselves or our allies and equipment and materials of strategic value to potential aggressors. I have been dealing so far with the question of the capital equipment which we or our allies may need. The question of security, of control over the strategic shipments, is a separate one, because there might be goods of value to other countries which we ourselves, or even our allies, may decide we do not need for our own immediate purposes.
If I understood rightly, the right hon. Member for Woodford was principally concerned with the security point in his recent broadcast, though I am bound to say that for one who was so concerned with a security point, as we all are, and rightly, it seemed a little remarkable that in broadcasting to the whole world he should have gone out of his way to advertise that a particular town, indeed, a particular factory, was the location of what he called "a lot of confidential production for His Majesty's Government."

Mr. Lyttelton: Is it not likely that the Poles and Russians knew where they were to get these supplies from?

Mr. Churchill: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that there are two Russian inspectors who have a right to go into these works and who have exercised, or sought to exercise, their rights quite recently? Is there the slightest doubt that the Russians know where they bought the tools from?

Mr. Wilson: I think the right hon. Gentleman was a little hasty in assuming that the management of Craven Brothers were going to be negligent in carrying out the request of His Majesty's Government to ensure that these inspectors should see only the Russian equipment and not the work to which the right hon Gentleman referred.

Mr. Somerset de Chair: It is no secret.

Mr. Wilson: I must answer the other question put by the right hon. Member


for Aldershot. He asked me whether it was not a fact that the Russians and the Poles would not already know where they were placing their own orders. I should have thought there was a fairly simple answer—they would know. But if the management of Craven Brothers have taken the steps they were asked to take, namely, to see that any inspectors who went there did not see work being done for His Majesty's Government, then it is at least possible that they would not have known what work was going on for His Majesty's Government until the right hon Gentleman—

Mr. de Chair: rose—

Hon. Members: Sit down.

Major Tufton Beamish: The Minister has not got a case. Do not bother.

Mr. Wilson: I have given way—

Major Conant: rose—

Mr. Wilson: —several times.

Mr. de Chair: When we are discussing a matter of extreme national importance like this, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, and there is a completely contradictory statement by the Minister of Supply, is it not—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Major Milner): No point of order arises there. Other hon. Members will have their opportunity to put their version of the case.

Mr. Wilson: On the control of equipment and materials of value, as the Opposition Motion puts it—

Mr. Lyttelton: I am sorry to interrupt, but before the right hon. Gentleman leaves this part of the subject, is he not aware that the Minister of Supply said that no secret equipment was being made by Craven Brothers, and said it at Question Time today?

Mr. Wilson: I am usually aware of things that I hear my own right hon. Friends say in the House. [An HON. MEMBER: "Well, is it not right?"] The point I was making is that if the right hon. Member for Woodford had reason to believe—and he seems to be very well briefed in this matter of what is going

on at Craven Brothers—[An HON. MEMBER: "He is."]—if he had reason to believe that secret work was going on there, whether or not subsequently that turns out to be the case or not, I should have thought it was a little remarkable that that matter should have been announced to the world in a political broadcast.

Mr. Churchill: The right hon. Gentleman is making a reflection upon this firm. I had never heard of them before—[An HON. MEMBER: "You would not."] I treat with contempt such taunts. I had never heard of this firm until the managing director sent me all the correspondence he had had with the Ministry of Supply over the last two and a half years, in which he had been begging to know whether he should continue to export these vital materials to Soviet Russia in view of the darkening of the scene, and had never been able to get any decisive answer of any kind—only the kind of woollen fluff that we are served up with today. I am quite sure that the firm is under no blame and is not negligent. They only pointed out that Russian inspectors have the right to come into the factories, were pressing to come, were walking about the factories freely. and that the work in the factories both for the Government and for Russian and Polish exports was naturally mixed up together. I think it is unfair to throw blame upon them. All they did was to send their correspondence to me, and I alone am responsible for the use which, with their full permission, I made of it.

Mr. Wilson: The speech of the right hon. Gentleman seemed to be based on the assumption that I was criticising Messrs. Craven Brothers for briefing him—[An HON MEMBER: "You were."]—in connection with the broadcast, or that I was criticising them for negligence. If the right hon. Gentleman will study what I said, he will find that I did not say anything of that kind. What I said when I was challenged, both by himself and my right hon. Friend, on the point of whether the Russians would not already know what secret Government work was going on at Craven Brothers, was that I hoped he would not be hasty to assume negligence on the part of Craven Brothers. It is a very different thing.
If, as I understand, hon. Gentlemen opposite are interested to know our views


on the subject of the control of equipment of military value, perhaps they will allow me now to continue. I have already indicated that there is a wide range of goods subject to international control, and the House will have gathered, from my announcement about the impending extension of that list, that we shall not hesitate to widen, whenever necessary, the range of goods covered; but, as I have indicated to the House and until the last few days I do not think this policy has been criticised or challenged—the control does not at present cover goods which are the subject of commitments entered into before 8th April, 1949. As I have said—and I want to deal in a moment with the specific instance referred to by the right hon. Gentleman—a good number of these items ordered before 1949 will come into the category of equipment which we ourselves, and others associated with us, may require.
The right hon. Gentleman has referred to certain heavy machine tools which have been the subject of some considerable public comment, particularly the two large vertical borers at present on order for Poland from Messrs. Craven Brothers, and also, of course, other machine tools on order for Russia. I do not want to go now into all the relations between the Ministries and Craven Brothers. I quite agree with what is, I think, the view of the right hon. Gentleman, that no useful purpose would be served by going into the long correspondence which, like him, I have studied with close attention. I should, however, like to say a word about the Polish orders in particular.
The Russian agreement, as I have already made clear in an answer to a Question this afternoon, does not provide any specific undertakings with regard to machine tools, with the exception of wood-working machine tools; but they were covered in general terms by the agreement with Poland. In that agreement we undertook not to prohibit the export to Poland of capital equipment ordered on or before the date of signature of the agreement, namely, 14th January, 1949. A considerable proportion of the Polish orders were, in fact, placed before that agreement was signed.
We have been endeavouring, in very close consultation with Messrs. Craven Brothers, to find out whether and when the particular machine tools were ordered.

It has been extremely difficult to get accurate information from them—I say that with no reflection on them, because I think they have had their difficulties also about this; it was only this morning that we heard to some extent in contradiction—again, I make no complaint—of previous information which we had had from them that one of the important machine tools in question was, in fact, ordered before the Polish agreement was signed, and not after it was signed, as we have been led to believe.

Mr. Churchill: What deduction does the right hon. Gentleman draw from that?

Mr. Wilson: I think that when he has had time to study this, the right hon. Gentleman will draw the deduction that if the machine tool had been the subject of an order after the signature of the Polish agreement, there would have been no obligation on us to ensure its shipment, but if it had been ordered before the Polish agreement there would be an obligation, which, I think, makes something of a difference.

Hon. Members: Why?

Mr. Churchill: They are going to get it all, are they not?

Mr. Wilson: Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will let me continue. I am sure the House will agree that, despite the assurance we gave in the Anglo-Polish Trade Agreement of 1949, there has been in the interval since that date such a substantial change of circumstances that it should now be reviewed. The events of this summer, and, in particular, the defence programmes which world conditions have forced on us, make a great difference to the position so far as equipment required for defence purposes is concerned; and there can be little doubt where the responsibility for those world conditions lies. I am sure the House will agree that certainly we ought not in present circumstances to be denied the use of such necessary equipment for our own defence programmes. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."]
Before I deal in detail with those particular machine tools, perhaps I ought to remind the House, if I need to, that Eastern Europe has been a traditional market for our machine-tool industry for very many years. It would be a very


serious thing if the whole of our machine-tool exports to Eastern Europe were to be cut out. In fact, 41 per cent. of our total exports of metal-working machine tools went to these countries, almost wholly to the Soviet Union, in 1938–39. I am not quoting this figure in any criticism. It was 82 per cent. in 1932, and certainly without those orders the capacity of the machine-tool industry could not have been maintained and we should have been in a far worse position and shape for meeting the needs of war in 1939 to 1945, as the right hon. Gentleman will be the first to agree.

Mr. Churchill: Russia was on our side then.

Mr. Wilson: Perhaps I should give figures for comparison. The proportion of our exports going to these countries in 1949 was 16 per cent., and in the first half of this year, 17 per cent. In fact, the Soviet Trade Agreement was welcomed by the industry's spokesmen as re-opening this traditional market.
As I have made plain, there are still substantial orders outstanding on the British machine-tool industry from Eastern Europe—

Mr. Churchill: Principally Poland and Russia?

Mr. Wilson: Yes, principally Poland and Russia. We are at present engaged in obtaining information from the firms concerned—I understand there are about 30 of them—to obtain full details of each particular order, the specifications, the expected delivery dates, and so on. When that information is available, the case of each particular item will be considered by the production Department concerned—the Ministry of Supply, the Admiralty and so on—where necessary, in consultation with Government contractors or others, such as sub-contractors, who are concerned with our defence programmes.
In addition, if the items are not wanted by ourselves, particulars in respect of each item will be circulated also to our partners in the North Atlantic Treaty organisation and in the Commonwealth to see whether they will require them. This process of exhaustive examination of the possible requirements of each machine tool by our partners in the Commonwealth and in the North Atlantic Treaty

organisation will necessarily take some considerable time, and during that period it is intended that the goods concerned shall not be exported. In other words, each machine tool will be held back in order to see whether we require it for our own purpose.
I cannot give an undertaking—and I am sure the House would not press for it—that after our partners and we ourselves have examined these items, the export of all goods which were ordered before the control was imposed, and which are not required by any of us, will be prohibited. I cannot give an undertaking that in every case there will be a prohibition of exports. The first thing will be to see whether any of our partners requires the tools.

Mr. Churchill: Of course, I am sure the right hon. Gentleman will take into consideration any strong representations he receives from the United States in favour of the export of these raw materials to Soviet Russia at the present time.

Mr. Wilson: I am not quite clear of the purpose of the right hon. Gentleman's intervention. He will be aware, as I have said, that we have all along maintained the closest relations with the United States in considering the lists of prohibitions.

Mr. Sydney Silverman: Are we to understand that we shall exercise a right to withhold delivery of articles of which we undertook by treaty not to withhold delivery? In other words, are the Government now committing themselves to the view that obligations under a treaty can be abrogated or repudiated if there is a substantial change in circumstances?

Mr. Logan: May I ask my right hon. Friend whether, in spite of treaties that may be made, in view of the importance of the safety of this country he will take all possible chances of restricting everything which can be used for war purposes from going out of this country to the Cominform?

Mr. Wilson: I cannot give my hon. Friend for the Scotland Division of Liverpool (Mr. Logan) the complete assurance for which he asks, but I agree with the point of his intervention. Since this trade agreement was signed, there have been considerable changes in the relations


between our two countries, which are bound to affect our trade relations as well as other matters, and, in particular, the shipment of goods which we may require for our own defence purposes.
As to the two vertical boring machines referred to by the right hon. Gentleman, both of these were ordered, as far as we can tell, before the agreement. It is already clear that one of them, on which work has not yet begun and which will not be ready until December of next year, will be needed for our defence programmes. It will, therefore, not be leaving the country. The second one, which will not be ready for some 18 months, will be the subject of the procedure I have mentioned; in other words, full particulars will be circulated to all Government Department, to our partners in Western Europe and to the Commonwealth, to see whether they require it.

Major Guy Lioyd: rose—

Mr. Wilson: I have given way several times.
The Motion in the name of the right hon. Gentleman also refers to raw materials, and, of course, the control covers a very wide range of raw materials. In addition to this control, we maintain some administrative control on particular materials. It would, of course, be impossible, short of a complete blockade, to stop all shipments to Eastern Europe of materials which are capable of being used for military purposes; but, as my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said, we are watching for evidence of abnormal orders of these things, especially of goods that might be re-shipped or sent to Korea. It is, therefore, vital that any supplier who is approached with unusual orders and, in particular, orders which seem unrelated to normal peace-time requirements from any of these countries, should seek the advice of the appropriate Government Department.
So far as these supplies are known to us, we are taking administrative action with the firms concerned to control or limit shipments to keep down these exports to reasonable figures. There was, for instance, evidence a few weeks ago of abnormal orders of copper wire, and some shipments were made. When it was brought to our notice, the British Non-Ferrous Metals Federation co-
operated in restricting exports, and all copper was put under control a week ago.
I was not clear—and the right hon. Gentleman did not clear my confusion—whether the Opposition were asking to put under control such shipments as wool and rubber. As I have explained, the greater part of Russian sterling expenditure in the past two years has been on wool and rubber, although some quarters, and, if I have not misunderstood the Press report, I believe the noble Lord the chairman of the Conservative Party in a recent speech in the country, have been asking for these particular materials to be put under control to prevent them from reaching the Soviet Union. In reply to that, I need only say that these items are not exported in the main from this country although there may be some small re-export in particular cases. But to control these particular items in the way suggested would almost certainly mean abolishing the free market in these commodities.
The suggestion has been put forward in certain quarters—and the right hon. Gentleman re-echoed it this afternoon—that it might be necessary for these and other materials to be put under some system of fair allocation of supplies in order to see that rearmament and other needs are met and to keep prices within bounds. That is a much wider question than we are discussing this evening. But the House should be under no illusion that if we are seriously to consider putting these strategical materials—although the phase in this context is almost meaningless—under such a form of control as to deny them to particular countries this would not only mean closing free markets; it would not only mean—unless we were able to get a very wide international agreement—that the countries concerned could just as easily get them from countries outside—Indonesia is a case in point; but it would mean also that action of this kind would be tantamount to an economic blockade against a group of countries with whom we have had, and still have, mutually advantageous trading relations and who have been, and are today, delivering to this country substantial quantities of at least one material of undoubted strategic value.
Timber, wool, rubber and other materials, like machine tools, are capable


of alternative uses; they can serve the purpose of war, or the purposes of peace, reconstruction and capital development. "The Times" pointed out in a leading article last week, to which my right hon. Friend drew the attention of the House, the dire consequences of extending—

Mr. Churchill: Is this the one about steel?

Mr. Wilson: We also are capable of quoting articles from "The Times." "The Times" said:
This country has until now—within safeguards—been ready to live and trade with all who live at peace with it. If one nation sufficiently mistrusts another's aims, it will be justified in refusing to trade with it at all; and such a refusal might be regarded as a logical development of the present defence policies of the other Atlantic Pact Powers. But an economic blockade would take all concerned a long step farther along the road to open war. And the aim of these defence policies—and the deep hope of the peoples who resolutely support them—is that the peace shall be preserved . …
I was glad to hear the right hon. Gentleman say this afternoon that, as far as he and those for whom he spoke were concerned, economic blockade was not part of their policy, because in many parts of the country, in certain sections of the Press and among certain speakers—

Mr. Lyttelton: Who? Quote.

Mr. Wilson: I might even quote my Conservative opponent in my division if the right hon. Gentleman wants a case in point—there has been a tendency, following the broadcast of the right hon. Gentleman, to press for measures which would be bound to lead to an economic blockade.

Mr. Churchill: I am much obliged to the right hon. Gentleman, who has certainly been very patient and considerate to the questioning that has taken place, but what is his suggestion that I have advocated an economic blockade? I do not remember anything of the kind. I would like some words quoted to justify it.

Mr. Wilson: If the right hon. Gentleman will listen to me for a moment replying to his question, I am sure he would not want to misrepresent what I have just said. What I said was that I was glad to hear from the right hon. Gentleman,

speaking for himself and for those on behalf of whom he was speaking, of the Opposition—

Mr. Churchill: The right hon. Gentleman says in the same breath, "speaking for himself," as if to suggest a difference, and "speaking for the Opposition," the official Opposition; what is the point of putting these two opposite propositions in the same sentence?

Mr. Wilson: I should be surprised to think that the right hon. Gentleman's memory of such things in the Election campaign is so short that he did not realise it was possible, and indeed usual, for Members of the Opposition to speak with totally different voices. I said I welcomed the fact that the right hon. Gentleman himself made it clear and, speaking for those for whom he was speaking this afternoon, refused to contenance any question of economic blockade. There is nothing wrong with that. I further went on to make plain that it was a matter of great relief to me and, I am sure, to the House generally, because in certain quarters there have been articles, there have been speeches—I referred to a speech by the noble Lord the chairman of the Conservative Party and, when challenged for a particular example, I referred to the Conservative spokesman in my division—I am relieved to find that the official spokesman for the Opposition, not those engaged in political propaganda in the constituencies, has now repudiated any question of an economic blockade—

Mr. Lyttelton: As we did before.

Mr. Wilson: —and I would suggest that the lead which I think has gone out from both sides of the House this afternoon on this question should be followed because of the grave consequences which would undoubtedly result from any attempt to put an iron curtain, a complete iron curtain, on trade between Eastern and Western Europe.

Mr. Clement Davies: Before the right hon. Gentleman sits down, may I put this to him? He has said that either before decisions are arrived at, or when a decision is arrived at, consultations take place between His Majesty's Government, the Government of the United States, the Commonwealth and members of the Atlantic Treaty. Could he say a word on the machinery,


if there is any machinery, for such consultations, because it is very important that there should be no disputes or quarrelling amongst the allies?

Mr. Wilson: I think II made it clear to the House that, following the introduction of our own control list, we took the lead in Europe in establishing machinery under which from time to time, in fact very frequently, the Powers of Western Europe, together with Canada and the United States, considered the control list in force in the several countries and attempt to reach agreement on possible extensions to that list, when it is felt that those extensions should be made; and that as a result of that machinery there are now in operation two controls, one of which covers goods which the export of which to Eastern Europe is completely prohibited and the other of which covers goods subject to quantitative control related to the normal peace-time civilian use of the countries with which we are concerned.

4.51 p.m.

Mr. Walter Fletcher: The President of the Board of Trade has spent nearly 25 minutes coming round to the point of saying what all of us in this House know he will eventually say—that the case put forward with such clarity, and supported with so many facts, by my right hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot (Mr. Lyttelton) that these particular types of machine tools, which we all know are vital to our rearmament programme, are to be retained in this country, whether they were made before or after the Polish and Russian Treaties.
In view of the good and factual atmosphere in which this Debate is taking place it would have been very much better if the right hon. Gentleman had said at once what we know perfectly well will be proved by the facts—that the machines are not to go. It really is slightly farcical, when one knows that these consultations between the Ministries which are particularly concerned in this export question have been going on ceaselessly, not only since the Korean incident but before, that a picture should be drawn for us that the Government are now setting in motion machinery which has been working for a long time.
The fact remains that the conclusion to which the right hon. Gentleman has undoubtedly come, and which he will either announce to us openly or let out on a smaller occasion, is that owing to a great extent to the pressure brought from this side of the House, these goods are not to be sent out of the country. It is as well to affirm once and for all that that is the answer, and one wonders why it was not given at once. Why did the Minister not get up and say "Circumstances have altered enormously; we quite realise that it would be wrong and dangerous to export these things and we shall not do so?" That would have engendered much greater confidence than the vast circumlocution in which he indulged.
The key words in the Amendment which the right hon. Gentleman has moved are "in all appropriate cases," because what is the actual fact? It is that whether raw materials from other parts of the Dominions or the Empire or exports from this country are concerned, the decision as to whether they should be exported must be made by His Majesty's Government. Hitherto, the practice, which was to some extent outlined by the President of the Board of Trade, has been that when any firm or association approaches a Government Department with a query the buck is passed back to them. That is done in something like the following form, and the right hon. Gentleman knows that on this subject I am speaking from some considerable personal experience.
Let us suppose that a firm puts forward the query, "Should we accept this order?" whether it be a direct order or indirect in the sense of coming from one of the satellite States or through a neutral country, and the firm either has considerable doubts or in some cases has fairly certain knowledge as to what the eventual destination is to be. The reply that is nearly always given is, "If you think that the country concerned could obtain supplies from an alternative source, it is, on the whole, better that you should supply it yourself because it may be the means of acquiring gold or dollars or other desirable currency, or may even be part of a barter scheme which already exists." That system may well have been appropriate up to a few months ago. I do not think it is appropriate now.
In this Amendment the Government are taking upon themselves what they


should have taken before, namely, the bounden duty to give a much firmer instruction both to individual firms and trade associations, and to decide once and for all on their own responsibility whether deliveries should or should not be made. I believe that to be of the greatest possible importance. To take the case of rubber—and I at once declare my personal interest as a trader in rubber—I would remind the right hon. Gentleman how time has altered the view of the Government. I think I am right in saying—it may not be known to right hon. and hon. Gentlemen—that rather less than three years ago some 10,000 tons of rubber out of the Government stocks in this country—the small exiguous stocks which did not represent even three months' supply—were actually sold and shipped to Russia.
It is true that at the same time a considerable shipment was made to the United States for dollars. Nevertheless, when the right hon. Gentleman was just now trying to point a finger at firms and individuals, and talking about what would be found if one went to the Library and made slight researches about what they had said and done, I would ask him how he reconciles that with a delivery at that time of 10,000 tons of an important raw material of which this country has quite insufficient stocks, and whether the right hon. Gentleman would think it wrong for trades and associations to do the same?
I suggest that the truth in this matter, and the right hon. Gentleman must know it, is that the whole world, including this country, has for a long time been dollar hungry and in dire need of dollars; and that the prime motive actuating the sale of raw materials as well of manufactured goods has been the obtaining of dollars or currencies almost equal to dollars. The right hon. Gentleman knows quite well that the Soviet Union has been a considerable buyer in both dollars and gold. He knows quite well that the Soviet has bought through neutrals. The time has now come when this constant examination of all orders must require a slightly closer method of co-operation. The right hon. Gentleman will be the first to admit that the great trade associations dealing with raw materials have been in constant touch with and have been constantly asking

questions of Government Departments as to what their policy should be. The Rubber Trade Association in particular, working through the agency nominated by the Government, which is the Bank of England, have been a prime earner of dollars and have on every single occasion reported to the Government what they thought might be the final destination of certain contracts, and have co-operated to the full.
The House must also take into consideration the fact that for two and a half to three years there has been a constant endeavour by all concerned to stop the leaks of gold and dollars in the sterling bloc. It is a rather interesting fact, and shows the difficulty of imposing anything like a workable—I will not say sanction—method of directing raw materials into the desired channels, that it was quite impossible to stop enormous quantities of wool, tin, rubber, diamonds and other products of the British Empire from finding their way outside the proper channels through which they should have gone, resulting in great gains to others outside this country. It was only devaluation which brought that state of affairs to a close. It is wise, when we are considering these matters, that we should think not only of what is immediately desirable but also which is really practicable.
This question of rubber has been brought to the attention of everyone very much indeed during the last few days, I think in a rather unfortunate manner, because Mr. Symington, whose name is well known to hon. Members, and who holds a high position in America, has thought fit to refer to hoarding and profiteering in rubber. If there is one thing which cannot be laid at the door of the producers, whether natives, who represent 50 per cent. of the producers, or European-owned estates, it is that they have deliberately attempted to take advantage of the tight situation in rubber.
The truth of the matter is that there has been an enormous increase in the natural demand throughout the world, due to trade expansion in America and elsewhere, of nearly all raw materials, and the expansion of production cannot in any way keep up with it. There lies on our doorstep as an immediate problem how we are, to the best advantage, to achieve two or three objectives at the same time. The first is to see that the stock-


piles in Western Europe, in this country and in America get the first priority, and that they are filled as rapidly as possible. In that connection, I was a little surprised to see in the Prime Minister's statement at the beginning of our Debate last week some advice which he gave to manufacturers:
As to raw materials, it is not considered that there should be any serious shortages"—
That, I think, is a little optimistic—
but I would make a special appeal to all concerned in industry not to increase their stocks beyond their actual needs."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 12th September, 1950; Vol. 478, c. 968.]
I should have thought the right advice to give—and it is directly to do—

ROYAL ASSENT

Message to attend the Lords Commissioners.

The House went; and, having returned—

Mr. SPEAKER reported the Royal Assent to:

National Service Act, 1950.

WAR MATERIALS (EXPORT)

Question again proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."

5.10 p.m.

Mr. W. Fletcher: As I was pointing out, the Prime Minister, in his speech last Tuesday, suggested to manufacturers that they should not hold stocks. I believe that is bad advice, and that manufacturers should be asked by His Majesty's Government to hold and to maintain a normal three months' stock of raw materials. That has the advantage from the security point of view of a very necessary dispersal of stocks; from the financial point of view, it relieves the Treasury and the taxpayer of carrying stocks which it is the normal duty of manufacturers to do, and it also creates that stabilising influence in commodity markets which is so necessary. I hope that whoever is to reply to the Debate will agree that that idea is one of the first and most necessary reforms.

On the question of raw materials, a vital factor must be the American attitude. America has taken considerable unilateral action in this matter. In the case of rubber they have limited civilian use, and they have taken the salutary action—which contains in it the corrective of the abnormally high prices we now see—of putting into gear the whole of the great synthetic plants which were created during the war, and which helped to save the Allied war effort. It makes one think that if we are to arrange—as undoubtedly we shall—priority of war materials for ourselves, Western Europe, our Allies and America, there will undoubtedly come a moment in the production of these materials when we shall have satisfied our current demand and created our stocks.

At that moment the problem will present itself that the palliative that we are to put into operation, of taking the first priority of these goods for ourselves, will have ceased, and to the problem of whether we wish to stop these supplies going to less desirable countries we shall have to find a new solution. As I believe in planning and in thinking ahead, I recommend to the Government that they begin to think a little now about what is to happen when we have created our stock-piles and are fulfilling our current obligations.

The actual figures of raw rubber going into Russia may be of some interest. They show that in 1947 the amount was 35,000 tons; in 1948, about 100,000 tons; in 1949, 105,000 tons—not all of it direct; 35,000 tons coming not direct from Malaya at all, but largely through Holland—and this year the rate of importation is almost exactly the same as last year's.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: Could the hon. Gentleman give us some idea of how much profit has been made by British capitalist concerns from the supply of rubber to Russia during the last 12 months?

Mr. Fletcher: I am surprised that question has not been asked before by the hon. Gentleman because he has been asking it steadily in every Debate, whether it is relevant or not. The answer is that as 50 per cent. of rubber is produced in Malaya by natives, of whom he sometimes poses as the champion, at least 50 per cent. of any profit goes to them.


Actually, the profit made cannot be computed for the simple reason that forward contracts have been made, and always are made, in an open market, and that deliveries are being made from prices ranging from 1s. 3d. to 3s. 8d. The total profit has nothing to do with this particular case at all.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: Can the hon. Gentleman give it?

Mr. Fletcher: Anyone can study what it is. The hon. Gentleman can get it if he studies the papers. What is important is that America, ourselves and Western Europe should start to co-ordinate our stock-piling and take such action as we may think fit between ourselves, to see that rubber and other vital raw materials do not reach destinations which we think undesirable. At the moment, there is not much sign of unity of thought and action such as took place when the Joint Raw Materials Board was working so extremely well. I believe that that is almost the first of the steps to be taken.
If we are really to achieve various objectives we must be very careful that precipitate and unilateral action does not harm too much the supply of dollars which we get from most of these raw materials. After all, we have been told by the Prime Minister and by other members of the Government that privations, hardships and sacrifices will have to be made. Those will be sharply accentuated and greatly increased if the Government show no more prescience and as much inertia as they have over the machine tools incident. We know quite well that if a severe drop takes place in our dollar earnings—and it must take place if within the sterling bloc, such dollar-earners as tin, wool, rubber, etc., cease to draw in the full crop of dollars—we shall find ourselves unable to buy the machine tools and other rearmament equipment which we have to get from America.
Parallel with the effort of seeing that raw materials are first of all obtained for ourselves and our friends, there must be a well thought out plan so as to ensure that, as other areas produce these things and as we are not the sole controllers and producers, we get the maximum in that direction. There was an incident before the

war which showed how this could be done. That was the deal involving 100,000 tons of rubber willingly entered into at a low price by exactly that group attacked by the hon. Member for Ayrshire, South (Mr. Emrys Hughes)—the rubber growers—in exchange for cotton, which was very short at the time. I believe that that deal made in 1939 might well provide the pattern for the rather rapid action which we have to take. When questioned about stocks, the right hon. Gentleman always retires behind the smokescreen of its not being ill the public interest and security. If the truth comes out and insufficient stocks are revealed, then the public really will fall upon those who have used these arguments of "not in the public interest" as a smokescreen.
I believe that in many commodities the stocks are inordinately low. I can understand the difficulty when dollar earning was the only reason. But now that there is something even more important—our security and the proper running of our armament machine—let us have more action and less concealment. Let there be no waste of time, as we had the other day, by the Government simply agreeing that we were right about machine tools. Let us have a frank confession that new methods will be put into practice, and then we shall all feel a much greater sense of security. Further, as this Debate takes place on our initiative, the country will realise that an Opposition is, in its way, just as useful and often much less harmful than the Government.

5.20 p.m.

Mr. Woodburn: When I heard that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Alder-shot (Mr. Lyttelton) was to open this Debate I was rather astonished. I could hardly believe that he could possibly associate himself with what appeared to be the attitude of the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition, in his wireless broadcast, in favour of carrying on an economic blockade, as far as machine tools are concerned, of countries east of the Iron Curtain.
I was quite happy, therefore, to hear the right hon. Member for Aldershot confirm my anticipation of what he would do. He gave us his realistic experience and advice from his knowledge of these industries and production affairs. I must


confess that my first impulse in taking part in the Debate was to reproach the Leader of the Opposition for his remarks on this subject in his wireless speech. One of our most essential needs today is that we should maintain good relations with the United States of America; and if there was one thing more calculated than any other to interfere with and injure those relations it was to suggest that there was any possibility of this country exporting war material to Russia while American soldiers were fighting in Korea.
My second thoughts were guided by the fact that the Leader of the Opposition came into power in 1940, in one of the most difficult times this country has ever gone through. He and his colleagues in the Coalition then faced a position in regard to machine tools which must have struck them all with horror, and which cannot be easily eradicated from their minds because, prior to the war, the machine tool industry in this country had been practically ruined. That was the result of the previous war, when it expanded to a tremendous extent. During that war the industry became so big that after the war there was no possibility of its finding a market for its tremendous output of machine tools. At that time there was no planning of how the industry was going to be rehabilitated. The Disposals Board disposed of machine tools in the country to various firms, I would not say recklessly, but as speedily as possible. The machine tool industry felt such a shock from this that it was left practically broken. Many of the machine tool manufacturers practically became agents for American, Swiss and German machine tools in this country.
When the last war broke out the machine tool industry was in almost a derelict position and, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Dunbartonshire, East (Mr. Kirkwood), knows—because he was one of the most highly skilled men in the industry—this country could not possibly carry on without tool makers, who are the basis of our productivity. Machine tool manufacturers went to garages and tramway depots and the like in an attempt to recover their displaced skilled engineers, who had left the industry because of its collapse after the First World War. Bribes were offered in public houses to get machine tool makers away from one firm to another.
At the beginning of the war, when the machine tool industry came before the Select Committee on National Expenditure, it was in the frame of mind that even though a war was going on the machine tool industry did not feel it could possibly risk another expansion, to be faced with collapse after the war was over. Indeed, the Select Committee—and the hon. Member for Croydon, East (Sir H. Williams), was chairman of an important sub-committee that was dealing with this—had to persuade machine tool makers that in the next period of peace the mistake made after the previous war would not be made again.

Mr. Watkinson: Is the right hon. Member really saying that at that period he is describing, the machine tool industry put their own private interests a long way ahead of the interests of the country?

Mr. Woodburn: Not at all. I said they were desperately afraid. They said so themselves, and if the hon. Member for Croydon, East, were here he would confirm what I am saying because he himself, as chairman of an important subcommittee, impressed upon the machine tool industry the necessity of expanding to help the country.
There was a tacit pledge given to the machine tool industry that when the war finished, that collapse would never be allowed to recur. If, as seemed to be implied on the wireless by the right hon. Member for Woodford, the British machine tool industry had been restricted only to markets in this country and the Colonies, and not to countries where machine tools might reach hands detrimental to this country, then the industry would have suffered the same fate after the recent war as it suffered after the First World War. The Labour Government kept faith with the machine tool industry.

Mr. Lyttelton: May I remind the right hon. Member that the scheme concerning the disposal of machine tools was a plan put forward by the Coalition Government and, in fact, carried into force by myself?

Mr. Woodburn: I have said nothing to the contrary. I have simply pointed out that there was a tacit pledge which was carried out by the whole arrangement


with regard to disposals. I simply pointed out that if these markets were closed to the tool industry, that industry could not survive after the recent war, any more than it could survive after the First World War.

The question of disposals was dealt with by a committee and the Board of Trade, during the period when the right hon. Member for Aldershot was Minister of Production and my right hon. Friend the Minister of Town and Country Planning was President of the Board of Trade. A scheme was drawn up so that the disposal of surplus machinery would not have the effect it had after the First World War. That was done in consultation with the machine tool industry. The Labour Government kept faith with the industry, and, since the war, every step taken with regard to the machine tool industry in this country has been taken in consultation with the trade.

The gentleman who misled the Leader of the Opposition by sending him those papers is not doing a service to the machine tool industry by trying to make a political issue of what is a very practical question. I was very much relieved to find the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Aldershot raise the matter today, not as a political stunt, as it was raised on the wireless, but as a practical issue to be faced by the whole House in the interests of the country as a whole.

I have a certain amount of sympathy with the right hon. Member for Woodford in his jumping to this issue, because of the experience he had in 1940, when he was desperately in need of everything the machine tools could offer. This country was handicapped for at least 18 months to three years by the position the industry was in. Anyone who was in the position occupied by the present Leader of the Opposition at that time must have been left with an impression with regard to machine tools that could never be eradicated.

There is one story—I cannot vouch for the truth of it—which illustrates the panic this country was in over machine tools. Lord Beaverbrook was Minister of Aircraft Production at one period. Everyone recognises that Lord Beaverbrook is a delightful pirate, who does not pay much attention to what is going on elsewhere when he has a job to do.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: On a point of order. Is it in order for an hon. Member to describe a respected member of the other House as a pirate?

Mr. Woodburn: When I come to the story my hon. Friend will see the application of the word. The Minister of Supply of that period had managed, through his agencies, to secure some very valuable machine tools from France and he intimated to his colleagues that these machine tools were coming from France and would arrive in this country. He looked forward with delight to being able to solve some of his problems by obtaining them. Unfortunately for him, Lord Beaverbrook was listening; he said nothing, but before the Minister of Supply ever saw the tools Lord Beaverbrook's Department had sent down lorries, "pinched" them and taken them over for the Ministry of Aircraft Production. When even Ministries were fighting each other for machine tools, it is understandable that people who were in charge of the great responsibilities at that time can never forget the experience.
What I regret, however, is that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Woodford did not even consult the Government Department before he made these statements on the wireless. We all feel a psychological reaction to the idea of supplying any arms to the enemy. That is not a new story; throughout the whole of his career the right hon. Gentleman must have experienced agitation against the supplying of arms to enemies. It is probably one of the most difficult problems ever to face a politician.
My first experience was as a lad in France during the Agadir crisis, when the cynical French told me it was simply another plan of the armament firms to get more orders. They said That Krupps, in Germany, used to inform Schneider's that they were going to make some new guns for the German Government in order that Schneider's could inform the French Government and get new orders for themselves. Since then there has been a Royal Commission on the Armaments Trade and the Americans have had an inquiry into the trade. After the First World War Rear-Admiral Consett explained that, even during the war, firms in this country were sending war material abroad. The very cement which made the pillboxes in France was being exported to Holland


and then to Germany, and British soldiers saw the labels of British firms on the cement round the pillboxes from which they were being shot down.
Naturally, when anything of that kind is mentioned it arouses horror among the general population. The right hon. Member for Woodford still carries great weight in America, although he may not carry the same weight in political controversy in this country, and I suggest respectfully to him that when he speaks on the wireless he should weigh his words far more carefully than is necessary for ordinary people like myself. He is respected all over the world for his personification of the war purpose during the war. He is respected as a historian and a writer and, I believe, as an artist. We are, perhaps, alone in knowing his qualities in the histrionic field.
This world respect places upon the right hon. Gentleman an even greater responsibility. When he descends from this great pedestal which he occupies and begins to spatter political mud on his opponents he sometimes forgets that his words blacken the reputation of this country as well as the reputation of his opponents. Whether we like it or not, the Government of the country for the time being carries with it the reputation of the country, and when the right hon. Gentleman makes unfair or irresponsible allegations which arouse opposition and supplies our opponents in other countries with weapons to use against us, then I suggest to him that he makes a mistake.

Commander Galbraith: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that the right hon. Member for Woodford (Mr. Churchill) has gained the respect of the country for bringing this matter to the notice of the House of Commons?

Mr. Woodburn: He could have gained the respect of this country had he raised it as a matter to be dealt with, instead of in a party broadcast in order to score points against the Labour Party. In other words, he did not raise it as a matter of statesmanship but as a point of party controversy, and I believe that, in that, he was misled and that he made a mistake.

Major Beamish: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that for 2½ years the Government showed themselves

utterly unable to make up their minds but that, within 2½ hours of my right hon. Friend hearing about the scandal, something was done?

Mr. Woodburn: That, of course, is quite an uninformed view and overlooks altogether the entire problem which I started to put before the House—that of the machine tool industry.
In the arrangements for the industry the question was whether we should satisfy our own needs at home whatever happened to the machine tool industry afterwards. The plain fact of the matter is that the customers of the machine tool industry all over the world had been deprived of British tools for nearly five years. If we were to forbid the export of machine tools from this country for another five years, then, at the end of that five years, the markets would have been lost for ever to British machine tools. That is very important to the long-term life of this country, not to the short-term programme.
I can give an example from my own experience. At one period after the First World War this country was lending money to Germany. We refused to allow Russia to buy paper mills in this country, but the Russians were able to go to Germany and buy the mills. The result was that, once these paper machines were established in Russia, the orders for replacements for the next 50 years would go automatically to Germany and not to this country. Thus, it is extremely important in engineering, if we wish to maintain an industry, that we should become the suppliers, the people to whom other countries are accustomed to turn for particular products. It was important that our machine tool industry should be allowed to establish itself in these markets.
The right hon. Member for Aldershot is the head of a great electrical machinery industry and he knows quite well that in the arrangements with that industry, we had to allocate a certain proportion of their products for export so that we could keep in touch with our customers abroad and keep supplying them. Had we not done that, America, Germany, Switzerland and other countries would have captured the markets, which would have been lost to us for ever. It is not quite so easy,


therefore, to say that we should stop supplying machinery to other countries. After all, this country has to live in peace.
The whole purpose of the Opposition's Motion, as it first appeared—and I am glad that that impression has been corrected—seemed to be that we should declare economic war on Russia. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] That was the impression we were given and I am very glad it has been corrected. But to declare economic war on Russia is a first step to some other kind of war. We cannot have economic war with fighting only on the one side. It is an awkward thing, I agree, but people are apt to fight back. Economic war, therefore, is two-sided and we must bear in mind that this country cannot live without trade with other countries. The Government had, therefore, to consider not only the present state of the machine tool industry but the future.
The Government proceeded along the lines that our business was to build for peace. One can prepare either for war or for peace. One can make provision in case there is war, but, quite clearly, one starts with the assumption that people intend to be reasonable and that eventually there will be peace. One cannot keep the country on a war basis for ever. The Government—and I am quite sure the House, too—still want to proceed on the basis that, with the establishment of the authority of the United Nations, we shall establish peace and shall be able to proceed on our peaceful ways.
Let us assume for a moment that we shall succeed, as I hope we shall. We still want to keep the markets in Russia because there is no country in the world where more development is required from an engineer's point of view. There is no greater market for our electrical industry; there is probably no greater market for the new hydro-electric engineering industry which we have been able to develop in this country. Although we must make it clear to Russia that we shall not help to make it possible for her to wage war on other countries, it is also important that she should realise that we desire to live at peace with her, to cooperate with her, and that we desire to trade with her as well as with the many other countries under her tutelage.
My purpose today is to plead with the Opposition, so far as that is necessary, not to make a political stunt out of something which is a very practical problem—out of something that may destroy one of our greatest industries. Of course, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Aldershot was bound, with his knowledge of these industries, to take the view that the matter ought to be looked at in a practical way. He has done that, and, up to now, the Debate has been along practical lines. The hon. Member for Bury and Radcliffe (Mr. W. Fletcher) has a great deal of background knowledge of the subject, although he mixes it up a bit with political propaganda, but on many occasions he gives wise advice to the House.
In essentials this is a practical Debate, and I would appeal to the House to keep it on that level. If we were to go to the country at some time on the issue of the question of exports to other countries of goods which might possibly be of use in the event of war, a lot of history would be raked up that would not make the problem easier to debate. The long history of armaments trusts, of intrigues between the armaments firms of one country with those of another, and of the stimulation of demand for armaments, is a story that had better be left to lie on the shelf. In the situation in which this country is today we want to preserve unity of purpose. We ought to make it clear to America that this country is acting cleanly and fairly in regard to these matters, and repudiate any suggestion that we are doing anything detrimental to the well-being of the United Nations. We must make it clear that we stand for freedom in the world and that we still hope the world will move forward in peace.

5.42 p.m.

Wing Commander Hulbert: My original intention was to deal with the controversy that has arisen around Messrs. Craven Brothers who are constituents of mine, but the right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Stirling (Mr. Woodburn) has raised two issues with which I should first of all like to deal. First, he has said that the Motion which the Opposition has put down really means the economic blockade of the Soviet Union and the countries behind the Iron Curtain. We on this side of the House absolutely repudiate that. The


second point he made was that the issue raised by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition was a political stunt. We repudiate that. My right hon. Friend raised the issue as a loyal subject of the Crown because information was given to him which had already been imparted to the Government and upon which they had failed to act.

Mr. Woodburn: I do not want to be unjust to the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition. Can the hon. and gallant Gentleman say whether the matter was raised on the Floor of the House by the right hon. Gentleman, or with the Government Department concerned, before he raised it on the wireless?

Wing Commander Hulbert: Obviously, the House was not sitting, and the matter was not raised on the Floor of the House; but when the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition says in public, over the radio system of this country and of the world, that he brought the matter to the notice of the Government, I believe him—[HON. MEMBERS: "He did not say that."]—and I believe that the mass of the people believe him.

Mr. J. E. Haire: I have the actual script of the right hon. Gentleman's radio broadcast here, and there is, in fact, no reference whatever to bringing it to the notice of the Government.

Wing Commander Hulbert: That is a matter the hon. Gentleman and I can join issue on, but I am certain my right hon. Friend did bring the matter to the notice of the Government.

Mr. William Ross: By means of the broadcast.

Wing Commander Hulbert: This Debate has arisen largely owing to the broadcast of my right hon. Friend. It centres around Messrs. Craven Brothers, who are located in my constituency, and for that reason I intervene for a few moments. Hon. Gentlemen opposite and the Socialist Party have sought to reflect upon Messrs. Craven Brothers and upon their managing director. Now, the firm of Craven Brothers is no mushroom concern. It has been established almost a century, and during that time has carried out important armaments contracts not only for this country but for countries overseas and for our allies in two world

wars. It has been suggested, in this House and outside, that the managing director is a Tory, or is a politician. Well, that gentleman is probably better known to me than to many other hon. Members here, and all I can say is that I have yet to find out whether or not he is a supporter of the Conservative Party. All I can say is that Mr. Greenwood with great regularity attends meetings of all political parties to find out what it is all about.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot (Mr. Lyttelton) has dealt in general terms with the vital issues involved in this controversy. I should like to refer to one or two matters he has touched upon. There are two points made in the radio speech of the Prime Minister—a speech remarkable for its lack of leadership for this country, and also remarkable for the personal attacks which it made upon the Leader of the Opposition, to whom the Prime Minister and many of his colleagues owe so much for what happened during the years from 1939 to 1945.
For the past 20 years Messrs. Craven Brothers, like many other great engineering concerns in this country, have carried out contracts for the Soviet Union. During that time Governments of every complexion have encouraged the heavy engineering industry in its export markets, and have encouraged it to export goods to the Soviet Union and to other countries. Today, however, conditions are very, very different. What would the Socialist Party have said if, in 1939, the aircraft industry of this country had been exporting aeroplanes and aero engines to Nazi Germany?
That is what the Government are doing today; they are permitting the export of essential war material to what is admitted on all sides to be the potential enemy of the Western democracies. Today, we all agree that the only possible aggressor is the Soviet Union and its satellites, and that has been proved in Korea in recent weeks. Not only this House but the whole country was amazed and incredulous at the naïve remark of the Prime Minister from which it appeared that he did not appreciate the difference between the Soviet Union today and the present Republic of Poland.

Mr. H. Wilson: Will the hon. and gallant Gentleman excuse me a moment? I am sure he is not doing it deliberately,


but that is a complete misrepresentation of what my right hon. Friend said last week. There were some jeers from the Opposition at his reference to the fact that these machine tools were going, not to Russia, but to Poland, and my right hon. Friend was making clear that there was a difference. The difference was a treaty obligation in respect of Poland which did not apply in the case of Russia, and which I have already explained to the House this afternoon.

Wing Commander Hulbert: When there is an aggressor in the world, it is time the Socialist Government paid more attention to realities than to treaties.

Mr. J. E. Haire: Under the principle which the hon. and gallant Gentleman is propounding, would he say to Craven Brothers that they should renounce this contract themselves?

Wing Commander Hulbert: In reply to the hon. Member, I say that it is the duty of the Government today to see that no war potential is exported to a possible enemy.
It is no use the Government saying that centre lathes, boring machines and all the rest are for civilian use. Anybody who has been in an engineering shop or has been engaged in engineering production is quite well aware that machines such as I have enumerated are just as useful, for war production as for civilian use, and even more useful. It is very much the same as saying that a civilian aircraft cannot be adapted quickly for bombing or military transport purposes. The immense amount of labour which is employed in building these machines for export to a possible aggressor behind the Iron Curtain would, I submit, be much better employed in producing our own defences, which have been so sadly ignored by the Government.
I also suggest that many of these heavy boring machines, centre lathes and all such machines are so badly needed here that the work which has been put in on them would have been better employed in our own home industry. The Prime Minister said:
We are watching these matters with close attention, and shall not allow such exports to damage essential defence needs.

We of the Opposition welcome that statement, but I do say that, in the meantime, by the action of the Government, our defences are being seriously imperilled.
What must the Americans think? Quite recently, the Prime Minister said in this House that without American aid there could be no effective rearmament. Yet, at the same time and even up to the present moment, we are permitting the export from this country of vital war materials. Like so many things which the present Government do, it simply does not make sense.
The Prime Minister has suggested that these goods are transhipped to Russia under some kind of barter agreement, but I submit that that is really, and perhaps quite innocently, misleading the country, because these goods which are exported by the firm of Craven Brothers are in fact paid for in cash, and, likewise, any imports of foodstuffs, timber and the like are paid for in cash. There, I agree, some action is taken to maintain the necessary financial balance, but I do not think that, in the critical state of the country today, there is any excuse for the Government not breaking any agreement which might exist in regard to essential war materials.
I would point out in passing that after the war, Russia did break agreements with the British Government to the extent of some £30 million. They cancelled contracts for engineering equipment. [HON. MEMBERS: "When?"] In 1945 or 1946. At that time, Craven Brothers themselves had an order cancelled which approached £100,000. Today, Craven Brothers alone have orders with Russia amounting to about £500,000, and for Poland for a similar amount. In fact, when we compare these figures with their exports to Russia over the last 20 years, which amounted on the average to about £4 million, they were exporting more in pre-war days than today.

Mr. Woodburn: The hon. and gallant Gentleman says that was in 1945, when peace had been declared and Russia cancelled large orders in this country. Perhaps they were orders for war material which was no longer to be used, since peace had come. Would he have insisted on sending that material to Russia?

Wing Commander Hulbert: I am not suggesting that at all, but the right hon.


Gentleman cannot say that, so far as this country, the Soviet Union and the whole United Nations are concerned, we are at peace today, and the sooner that Members on that side of the House begin to look after this country first, the better.
I only wish to refer to one other point, and that is the question of the Russian inspectors in our factories. Any works manager or any engineer knows that, if they have inspectors of a contractor in a factory, whether of a home contractor or a foreign one, it is virtually impossible to keep them in one section of the factory. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why?"] I will tell hon. Gentlemen why. This applies particularly in the production of heavy equipment running to many feet in length. If hon. Members opposite were to visit an engineering works, they would find that out very quickly.
I believe that the time has come when any mechanical engineering equipment which is a real war potential, which is being made in this country, and which could possibly be made specifically for the defence of the Western democracies, should be prevented from being exported to any possible aggressor. Finally, I think that the time has come when all engineering staff inspectors of the Soviet Union, of the present Polish Government or of any other country behind the Iron Curtain should be prohibited from entering any works which is making munitions of war for His Majesty's Government,

6.0 p.m.

Mr. Pannell: I am grateful for being called immediately following the hon. and gallant Member for Stockport, North (Wing Commander Hulbert) whose constituency is that in which Craven Brothers have their works, because I want to deal with some of the points which he has raised.
I think that most hon. Members will be greatly struck by the mildness of the atmosphere engendered by the right hon. Member for Aldershot (Mr. Lyttelton), following the broadcast speech of the Leader of the Opposition and the general Press campaign which resulted in the country. I deny that anywhere in that broadcast is there an indication that the Leader of the Opposition had ever brought this matter to the notice of His Majesty's Government. I cannot find it in "The Times," which I have in my

hands, and which I have been through since the hon. and gallant Gentleman spoke. I presume that he made that statement in all good faith, but he can take it from me that he is mistaken.
I want to refer particularly to what the Leader of the Opposition said about the men at Craven Brothers who make these machines. I think that I can speak with more authority than the hon. and gallant Gentleman who presumes to represent them. I have been a brother of their order for over 30 years, and they have written to me and asked me to put their case today. I am referring to certain words in the broadcast, and I do not rely upon a faulty memory but upon the record. The Leader of the Opposition, quoting Mr. Greenwood, said:
He could not get clear guidance. He told me that his highly skilled craftsmen were seriously disturbed at doing work of this kind for Soviet Russia and satellite Poland, which they feared would weaken our country and strengthen its most likely assailant.
What authority was there for that statement? There was none. The convenor of shop stewards at Craven Brothers was furnished with a draft of the speech before the Leader of the Opposition made it, and they had plenty of time to consider this matter. I believe that they were confronted with it on the Saturday morning that he made it. On the following Monday—the earliest possible date—they unanimously passed this resolution:
Regarding the statement made in Mr. Churchill's broadcast on Saturday night, the shop stewards' committee wish to dissociate themselves from the statement given relevant to the workers of Messrs. Craven Brothers. There is no resentment whatsoever by them regarding Russian orders or Russian inspectors being in the works and we, the workers, are prepared to carry out any work sanctioned by the Government.

Wing Commander Hulbert: Will the hon. Gentleman agree that the statement which he has just read was the result of a very unrepresentative meeting of some people of Craven Brothers, which was subsequently repudiated by the mass of the workers?

Mr. Pannell: No. I hope that the House, in this matter, will at least treat me as a national representative of the Amalgamated Engineering Union, making a responsible statement.

Wing Commander Hulbert: rose—

Mr. Pannell: No, I cannot give way, as I have not yet finished my answer. I will take my time on the matter. This was a properly convened meeting of the shop stewards of Craven Brothers. The resolution was passed unanimously by them, and I hope that it will not be suggested that there has been any Communist influence, because there is not a single member of the Communist Party on the shop stewards' committee of Craven Brothers.

Wing Commander Hulbert: How does the hon. Gentleman know that?

Mr. Pannell: Because I, in contradistinction to the Leader of the Opposition, verify my statements before I make them. I have asked for the closest inquiries to be made into this matter, and I am attempting to make out an official case on behalf of men who have been misrepresented by the Leader of the Opposition. That was a representative meeting and the resolution was unanimously passed on Monday, 28th August. It was a representative meeting of the shop stewards' committee.
I know that there is great difficulty in speaking to hon. Members who are not trade unionists and who know nothing about the inside of an engineering factory. I was a shop steward before I came here. It is, therefore, rather difficult to know where the Leader of the Opposition got his information, when he said that he was speaking on behalf of the men of Craven Brothers. [Interruption.] I think this type of interruption comes rather badly, bearing in mind the sort of thing said the other day in this House by the Leader of the Opposition when he spoke about the solid qualities of British trade unionism. He said:
We rejoice with them that the Trade Union Congress should have so decisively ranged itself, as was only to be expected by those who understand the solid qualities of British trade unionism with the unaltering and unflinching defence of the free way of life."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 12th September, 1950; Vol. 478, c. 974.]
These are the British representatives of trade unionism, and we cannot say in one breath that these people represent the solid core of British democracy—and the Leader of the Opposition would have remained in a trade union if the bricklayers had let him—and then repudiate constitutional trade unionism in the way

in which the hon. and gallant Gentleman repudiated it. I think that he will have to take that statement from them. In case anyone thinks that that is a misstatement, I would point out that this matter was also brought before the Engineering and Kindred Trades Federation on a day last week of which I could give the date.

Mr. Harmar Nicholls: The hon. Gentleman said that he took great care to look into what actually took place. Does he know that the shop stewards met without contacting the representatives in the various shops of the rank and file workers, and that the workers resent very much the statement made in their name, when they had not been consulted?

Mr. Pannell: The answer is that the inquiry that I have had made was by two full-time officials of the Amalgamated Engineering Union, representing that solid core of patriotism which hon. Members opposite were applauding last week, and they met as quickly as possible. I have that statement, and it says that there was an attempt by a certain individual—one person—to refute the shop stewards' decision but that this failed through lack of support. It is true to state that the overwhelming majority of our members fully endorsed the resolution of the stewards. That is the statement which was made, and I do not know from where the hon. Member for Peterborough (Mr. Nicholls) gets his information.
I would point this out to the House. I have also had it from the Secretary of the No. 9 Manchester District Committee of the Confederation of Engineering and Shipbuilding Unions, which embraces the 37 unions catering for the engineernig workers in Manchester, that at last night's quarterly meeting of shop stewards, which is a far wider meeting than Craven Brothers, it was unanimously agreed to support the resolution of the shop stewards of Messrs. Craven Brothers.

Mr. Nicholls: rose—

Mr. Pannell: Perhaps when the hon. Member interrupts me he will tell me from where the Leader of the Opposition gets his information. Was it from some non-unionist, or are they really supporting our people, because, after all, Members opposit have been courting the trade union movement lately and it comes very ill


from them if they are saying that a representative body of the trade unions cannot be trusted?

Mr. Nicholls: May I remind the hon. Member that the shop steward who was most active in convening this meeting was a Labour councillor and has a certain dual loyalty to face up to?

Mr. Pannell: That, again, is a curious doctrine coming from the Opposition. Is the hon. Member trying to suggest that all trade union members are not members of the Socialist Party, when the Opposition are repeatedly telling us that among their ranks are hundreds of thousands of trade unionists? It so happens that it is a Labour councillor who is convenor at this factory but it does not necessarily follow, simply because one is a Labour councillor, that one necessarily distorts a resolution, any more than we have a guarantee that the Leader of the Opposition sticks strictly to the truth in his broadcasts.
I have been looking into this matter, and I asked the Amalgamated Engineering Union to make inquiries so that I could have something which could be vouched for in this House. Therefore, we are speaking of men of honour. I am honestly saying what I believe is right, coming from men who speak the truth who would not hand me information which I could not use. I am absolutely satisfied that it is true. I now come to my next point. It so happens that the Manchester district secretary—

Sir William Darling: On a point of order. The Motion and the Amendment deal with machine tools and strategic war materials. I have heard a discussion for the last 10 minutes about an engineering firm called Craven Brothers and the Amalgamated Engineering Union. Has this anything to do with this Debate?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir Charles MacAndrew): I thought it was linked up with what we are debating.

Mr. Pannell: The Manchester district organiser of the Amalgamated Engineering Union said that he discussed with the shop stewards and the Amalgamated Engineering Union secretary, Mr. Jones, the history of the work undertaken by this firm for the U.S.S.R. I must point out that the Manchester district secretary of

the Amalgamated Engineering Union is past convenor of shops' stewards at Craven Brothers and may be presumed to know something about what goes on. Both agreed that 70 per cent. of the firm's output between 1932 and 1939 was for the U.S.S.R. Mr. Jones, who is now our Manchester district secretary, and the secretary of the works committee, Mr. Greenwood, stated that if it had not been for these orders in 1938, they were afraid that the firm would have had to close down. They also stated that they wished English firms would pay as regularly and as promptly as the U.S.S.R.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: If we go back to-1938 we are certainly getting beyond the terms of the Motion and the Amendment.

Mr. Pannell: With great respect, I think it is very relevant to the future of this industry, which is a highly skilled one, that we should prove that the goodwill built up between the wars should not be recklessly thrown away. Therefore, I am bound to make the point that the resolution I have read in regard to what was said of the people at Craven Brothers has a bearing on that. It will be seen that there was a time when these people depended for their livelihood on Russian orders alone. If they have passed a resolution which indicates they are willing to leave the matter to the Government rather than to the caprice of the Opposition, it merely indicates that they have memories of unemployment under the Tory Government.

Mr. Watkinson: I am sure that the hon. Member is perfectly sincere in what he is telling the House, but has he any connection with the machine tool industry?

Mr. Pannell: I have worked in it all my life. I really thought, when the Minister of Defence used the phrase "jigging up for production" the other night, and Members on the other side laughed, that they thought it had something to do with my hon. Friend the Member for the Exchange Division of Liverpool (Mrs. Braddock). It merely indicates the abysmal ignorance of Members opposite. We are discussing today war potential equipment, but Messrs. Craven Brothers, from 1932 to 1939, were selling to the Soviet Union machine tools recognised to be war potential, including gun boring machines and rifling machines.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I really think that if we go back as far as that, we are getting beyond the terms of the Motion and the Amendment.

Mr. Manuel: Is it not the whole point of the Opposition's Motion that the Government are exporting war potential material to some potential aggressor? Is it not in order, therefore, if we repudiate that by pointing out what the Opposition did when they were in office?

Mr. Molson: Further to that point of order. Is it not the case that in 1938 and 1939 we were hoping to have Russia as an ally?

Mr. Pannell: I am very anxious not to get at variance with the House or Mr. Deputy-Speaker. It has been suggested here that Russia is obtaining our secrets because of visits by inspectors to these works. I was giving a catalogue of machine tools, including all the well-known ones associated with war potential, which are already in the Soviet Union, and in respect of which the Soviet Union is therefore in possession of all the requisite information. During the whole of the time of which I am speaking Russian inspectors also had free access to the factory, with full opportunity to view all these machine tools.
To turn to the question of Russian inspectors, my information is that there has been only one visit by a Russian inspector since the war; that was about eight weeks ago. The majority of people in the works did not know he was there.

Major Beamish: He spent a whole day there.

Mr. Pannell: I would ask the hon. and gallant Member to consult the hon. Member who interrupted me a few minutes ago as to whether an engineering super man could pick up in one day the whole of what is happening in the works of Craven Brothers.

Major Beamish: I can answer the hon. Member by saying that I know very little about engineering. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] In spite of the jeers from hon. Gentlemen, I happen to be a director of a large engineering firm near Craven Brothers, about which I propose to speak later. The inspector to whom the hon. Member has referred was there for a

whole day. I was there for two minutes and in that time I saw the most secret machine in the whole factory.

Mr. Pannell: The fact that the hon. and gallant Member saw it, does not indicate that he understood it.

Major Beamish: Since I am again challenged, I would say that the machine happens to be a highly secret one which we cannot mention in this House. I know exactly what it does and exactly how it works.

Mr. Pannell: I can only express my surprise that the hon. and gallant Member was given any such information.
There was very little of this work between 1945 and 1949. I followed with great interest the list given by the right hon. Member for Aldershot of what is actually in Craven Brothers at present. Although the Leader of the Opposition did not say so, the Press magnified this aspect the next day and said that thousands of pounds' worth of machine tools were awaiting shipment from this firm. I suppose that is legitimate exaggeration of advocacy from the Conservative Press. The fact is that not one of those machines has yet been completed.
The people at Craven Brothers express some concern at the effect of any cancellation of orders because such an effect is very difficult to estimate. The firm claim that they would be able to dispose of these machine tools to other firms on their order list. Craven Brothers have at the present time something like £3,500,000 worth of orders, of which about £500,000 worth represent orders for the Soviet Union and, I believe, Poland.

Major Beamish: It is £500,000 for each.

Mr. Pannell: I accept that. But even if it is so, I would seriously ask the House to consider the point made by my right hon. Friend the Member for East Stirling (Mr. Woodburn) about these industries—that these kinds of exports which are on our list in certain fields are not easily picked up again. Those who went through the depression in the engineering industry and know something about the unemployment there was, can verify the difficulties which we ran up against in those days.
I think it is appropriate to remind the House—because we are speaking not about defence only but about not conducting an economic blockade against


Russia which may produce unemployment later—of a statement made by Sir Alfred Herbert, who was President of the Machine Tool Trades Association, in a letter to the "Manchester Guardian" as far back as 1932. It was of that period he was writing. He stated:
Russia is the only country in the world which is engaged in a wide scheme of industrialisation and consequently it is from Russia alone that large scale orders for industrial plant are available.
That is still true in a peaceful economy. The point was made by my right hon. Friend the Member for East Stirling that it is no use keeping the whole of our economy on the basis of a war-time potential only to find afterwards that we have no market for our machine tools. I am mentioning what Sir Alfred Herbert stated then because it may be that in the future the same sort of considerations will apply. He wrote, and no one will accuse him of being anything but a Tory:
The importance of her orders can be gauged from the fact that for a considerable period she has taken 80 per cent. of total exports of British machine tools.
That is the President of the Machine Tool Trades Association writing at that time.

Mr. Nabarro: The hon. Member is quoting Sir Alfred Herbert in 1932. Would he mind quoting a statement by Sir Alfred Herbert which appeared in the Midlands Press yesterday, recommending the complete banning of the export of all machine tools to Soviet Russia?

Mr. Pannell: That is because, like a good Tory, he is speaking in terms of the present hysteria of the Conservative Party. I am quoting what Sir Alfred Herbert stated at a time of depression in this country. To continue with my quotation from that letter—
and this is in spite of the fact that she is buying on an enormously greater scale in Germany and to some extent America, while Canada by contrast has been taking a minute fraction on the remaining 20 per cent.
I have made that quotation to underline the point made by my right hon. Friend the Member for East Stirling that we may still need this type of market in the future. It is a fact that when a recession from armaments comes about that can well be, as the period between the two wars showed us in the engineering trade, a time of depression and unemployment in the absence of markets in the East.

Wing Commander Hulbert: I suggest that the hon. Member is rather missing the point. We are not interested in our exports to Russia in 1922. What we are interested in today is whether Craven Brothers and other engineering firms of a like calibre and reputation should today export material to a potential enemy. That is the position now, not what happened 20 years ago.

Mr. Pannell: It was due only to the shortsightedness of the Governments that never looked before their noses economically, that we ran into unemployment and recession. That is a relevant point to make. I support the Government in this matter. I would not have any war potential sent to Russia at present.
The type of argument that we hear put up at present completely ignores the position of Yugoslavia. Is it not a fact that we have said that Russia's policy is obviously warlike because she has declared an economic blockade of Yugoslavia? That is so. We have also said that Stalin's protestations about desiring peace and the peace policy for which he claims the Soviet Union stands cannot be taken at their face value and we have based that view on his economic policy towards Yugoslavia almost more than on anything else. I am asking the House to have some consideration for the history of the matter and not to proceed with the degree of haste that some people desire; to look very closely and cautiously indeed. But I rose mainly to repudiate the Leader of the Opposition who quoted the people who work at Craven Brothers in a way which never represented their point of view.

6.30 p.m.

Mr. Watkinson: I am very glad to have the opportunity of speaking in this Debate. Despite what the hon. Member for Leeds, West (Mr. Pannell) has just said, I am one of the very few people in this House who is actually engaged in the machine-tool industry. Some of us get a little mixed up when we talk about machine tools. Actually it is a very tiny industry for all its great importance; it is only a very tiny section of the great engineering industry, with which he has nothing to do.

Mr. Pannell: If the hon. Member wishes to have my authority in this matter, it is that I started work in the


Newall Engineering Company, so he will see that my title is as good as that of anyone in the House.

Mr. Watkinson: I am glad to hear that. The Newall Engineering Company, as the hon. Gentleman says, is a very well-known name in the machine-tool industry. I am glad he has cleared up that point.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot (Mr. Lyttelton) has today rendered this country a very great service in drawing attention to a very dangerous state of affairs. That he has rendered that service is made abundantly clear by the fact that the Government have given him all that he asked for. I suppose that is the reason hon. Members opposite appear rather to wish the Debate to turn on what my right hon. Friend the Member for Woodford (Mr. Churchill) said or did not say in his broadcast. We should remember that before that time the appropriate Ministry had in their possession a dossier dating back over 2½ years on this subject. Despite the fact that the Government have now given in entirely after the Opposition have shown them the right way, their history in this respect may lead to misconception as to their duty to the country. I have no confidence in a Government or the Members of a Government which has behaved as this Government has about the export of machine tools.
The matter does not necessarily turn on the immediate question of armaments. Obviously, once Korea started, this reconsideration was vitally necessary. The subject goes back to the date when many of the orders we are discussing were first placed, and that is probably three or four years ago. My information is that the Russian machine-tool industry is very much more advanced than many hon. Members would wish to believe. The Russian industry is using transfer machines whereby the work pieces are transferred from machine to machine automatically. When we tried to introduce these machines in this country, as in Austin's, there was some immediate hostility by the trade unions. It is an interesting commentary that they are used in Russia and yet we sometimes find the greatest difficulty in employing them here because of the hostility of the trade

unions whose case has just been put by the hon. Member for Leeds, West. I notice that he does not disagree.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour (Mr. Frederick Lee): Is the hon. Gentleman stating that there are machine tools in existence in Britain which employers cannot utilise because of the hostility of the union concerned?

Mr. Watkinson: No, Sir. I was referring to a specific case, that of the Austin Motor Car Company where the difficulty will, I hope, in due course be satisfactorily overcome. I was saying that the Russian machine-tool industry is in many ways very advanced, but it is not in a position to produce work of the standard that we can attain with our high tradition of workmanship. It is all right when making lorries or gun carriages to accept a fairly low tolerance, but in the case of jet engines and the other finer weapons of war we have to strive for a much higher standard of craftsmanship, and in that respect this country stands supreme. This should have been known to the appropriate Ministries for five or even 10 years and it was a very serious decision to take at any time, quite apart form the immediate situation, for this country to supply the vital deficiencies in the Russian machine-tool production.
The total volume of our exports is probably about 5 per cent. of Russian machine-tool production; thus it would be nonsense if we stopped sending small centre lathes to Russia in the ordinary way, for there is a two-way trade here and we are importing certain types of machine tools from behind the Iron Curtain. We should trade with the Iron Curtain countries to the greatest possible extent consistent with certain safeguards, but we should satisfy ourselves that we are not building up trouble for ourselves in the ordinary trading sphere by equipping our competitors too well.
In that respect the Government have failed lamentably in the past. They should have considered that by exporting certain high precision machine tools to Russia they were probably filling a vital gap in Russia's production. Surely it would have been commonsense to assume that we were building up a competitive power in Russia which might at some later date affect our policy of full employment


by making Russia too important a competitor. That is why I say that this Debate is much more far-reaching than the immediate problem on which the Government have met us by agreeing that certain machine tools should not be exported until very full inquiries have been made.
The whole policy of the Government with specialised machine tools has been wrong from the very beginning. The Government bear a very grave responsibility. I do not wish to bring acute party political controversy into the Debate after it has been put on such a factual basis by my right hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot, yet we cannot but conclude that if the Government had spent more time looking into our world trading position instead of being obsessed with bringing into being the new Socialist Utopia, we might not now be experiencing this problem.

Mr. Woodburn: I gather that the hon. Gentleman thinks that we should not have exported high precision machine tools. That industry was not very well developed in this country compared with America. We had so many of these high precision tools to dispose of after the war that we practically flooded our market with them. If we do not export them, how are we to develop an industry which would be of vital use in producing these tools if war came?

Mr. Watkinson: I thank the right hon. Gentleman. His intervention enables me to refer to his speech. Having listened to it very carefully, I am not surprised that he and I do not agree about the machine-tool industry. I am afraid that I could not agree in any degree with anything that he said in his speech. I specifically said that I believed it was wise and proper that the general trade between the machine-tool industry of this country and Russia had gone on in what I would call the "bread-and-butter lines." What I was referring to was the type of machine about which we are talking today, the type of high precision machine tool which only this country can produce.
I do not hold the view which some hon. Members opposite seem to hold that the American machine-tool industry is superior to our own. It is not. Our own small machine-tool industry for craftsmanship and special machines is the finest

in the world and that is why it is very dangerous for us not to subject these exports to an inquiry, not only on the ground of armaments but almost entirely on the sensible ground of why we should export capital goods with which to equip our competitors.

Mr. Ivor Owen Thomas: Does the hon. Gentleman imply that we should cease exporting machine tools not only to Russia but to every other country? If so, what will become of our machine tools?

Mr. Watkinson: The hon. Member means that we should cease exporting them? Perhaps I may answer his interruption by saying that on 27th June I asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Supply whether it would not be wiser to reconsider that very point. Let us get this matter straight, as there seems to be much misconception in this Chamber about the machine-tool industry. I am not referring to the vast mass of the production of smaller firms, or even of the general purpose machine-tool firms in this country. They do not enter into this Debate at all and it is not my intention to bring them in. The more export trade those firms do, the better it will be for the trade of this country.
I asked the Ministry of Supply on 27th June whether it would not be wiser to retain a larger proportion of the machine tools here at home, and his answer was:
The Government consider that present arrangements afford the best balance between the needs of home industry and the need that the machine-tool industry should make the maximum contribution to exports, particularly to hard currency areas."—[OFFICIAL REPORT. 27th June, 1950; Vol. 476, c. 214.]

Mr. I. O. Thomas: Would the hon. Member cut out that export?

Mr. Watkinson: Only for these special purpose machines. I say that this particular problem should have been looked into at an earlier date.
Now may I say a word about the present position? The Government have now given us everything we asked for, but I very seriously question whether this action would have been taken but for the speech of my right hon. Friend the Member for Woodford. Many hon. Members have almost wasted our time in calling that speech to account. I wonder whether anything would have been done if my right hon. Friend had not made that broadcast.

Mr. Pannell: Is the hon. Member making the point that the Government might not have done anything but for the broadcast by the Leader of the Opposition? He must be aware that 18 months ago much war potential was put on licence and that the list has been added to from time to time.

Mr. Watkinson: I quite agree. The hon. Member is now referring to the export of various items that are on the prohibited list or for which an export licence is required. For all his history in the Newall Engineering Company, I think he does not quite realise what kind of machine tools we are talking about.
I do not want to delay the House, especially after some of the lengthy speeches which we have had. I have dealt with the point that I think the Government are very seriously to blame for not realising the general importance of these special tools from the trading point of view. Now I will refer briefly to the point that the Government should also be held very seriously to account for their failure to take action from the war potential point of view until the necessity was so thoroughly rubbed into them, first by my right hon. Friend the Member for Woodford, and secondly by my right hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot so ably today.
The machine-tool industry, as the right hon. Member for Clackmannan and East Stirlingshire truly said, pays tribute to my right hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot for the disposal scheme, which undoubtedly did much to save the machine-tool industry from difficult times after the war. That scheme was produced by the National Government under the driving force of my right hon. Friend, although I thought that the right hon. Member for Clackmannan and East Stirlingshire wanted to pinch the credit for his party. I do not think that it lies on that side of the House.

Mr. Woodburn: I did not even mention that for the first two years of the war I was responsible, under the Government, for the scheme. The present Minister of Town and Country Planning was at the Board of Trade when the Board of Trade drew up the scheme. I am not denying any credit to the right hon. Member for Aldershot, but he seemed to be claiming the whole credit for himself.

Mr. Watkinson: I am sorry if I misconceived the purpose of the speech made by the right hon. Member, but I do remember his saying that the Socialist Party had kept faith with the machine-tool industry.
Perhaps I may come to my second point, so that I may sit down and let some other hon. Member have a chance to speak. I just wonder whether the Government now realise the importance and the scope of this problem. I think that their reluctance to give us any answer about whether, for instance, large planers would be put on the list, is a sign that even at this stage they have not thought round the whole problem. My only purpose is to ask the Parliamentary Secretary—I am not quite sure who is in charge on the Government Front Bench at the moment—to note that if this scheme is to work, it is very necessary that what I call the "specials" in the machine-tool industry should all be reconsidered.
I do not think that by removing these special tools from our trade with Russia we shall affect the volume a great deal. I do not think, therefore, that any question of not sending enough to Russia to keep reciprocal trade going arises in any way, but I think that we are entirely justified in this country at the moment—I personally think we were justified all along—in holding back special machine tools of this kind. After all, the Russians know that this is a type of tool into which we put our very highest standard of craftsmanship. This country produces the very highest type of machine tool, and is ahead of any other country. Therefore, it is only right and proper that we should keep them at home when our need for them is great. I do not see how that affects trade with Russia in any way, or that it is anything that the Russians should grumble at.
There are two further small points to put to the Parliamentary Secretary. I have a telegram in my hand from one of the works in my constituency. The people there are watching this Debate, and they raise a practical point. They ask if the Minister will consider, in this matter of stopping the export of machine tools, whether we should also look at the question of the export of technical drawings. I do not necessarily mean the drawings themselves being exported, but their publication in technical journals in this


country. I refer to particular items of drawings which we would not wish to be put into circulation. I hope that we shall be told that this point also will be looked into.
We are all saying, and rightly so, as I think the House is united on this point, that we do not want our soldiers or American soldiers to be killed in Korea knowing that we have had some responsibility for making the armaments that brought about those casualties. I therefore ask the Parliamentary Secretary to watch one other point. The German machine-tool industry in the West is already leading the machine-tool industry in Europe. It has already overtaken our position. It is producing very large quantities of machine tools, including many of the heavy items that we are talking about.
Would it be very sensible to tighten loopholes here and still allow an unrestricted flow of this type of machine tool from Western Germany to the Eastern zone? For all I know, this point may have been checked up. I know that the Western German Government follow in step with the Americans and ourselves in regard to restrictions on reports. I hope we may be told that the Government will look into the position in Western Germany, in order to see that we are not plugging a leak here and leaving another leak wide open somewhere else.

6.49 p.m.

Mr. Emrys Roberts: The right hon. Member for Aldershot (Mr. Lyttelton) indicated in the course of his speech that there might not be a Division at the end of the Debate. That was a wise course. On the wording of the Motion and the Amendment there appears to be nothing contradictory between them, and if there were a Division, my hon. Friends and I would have to support the Government's Amendment as being more comprehensive.
In this matter it is very important that we should look to the future rather than to the past. It would be a great mistake to concentrate most of our attention during this Debate upon what has been happening over the past few months or years. The important thing is to develop a consistent policy for the future. It is clear—and I am glad—that all parties in this House are against any action which

might be interpreted as a general economic blockade of Russia and her satellites. That is a good thing because it would be disastrous if we tried to set in motion an economic blockade. It would only be one step nearer war.
The supplies we have obtained from Russia have been of great value to this country, particularly grain and timber. Moreover, while there is still trade between east and west there is hope for peace. Trade with the satellite countries is particularly valuable because trade contracts may be the only friendly contacts between us and those countries for many years. It would be a great mistake to suppose that countries with a strong national consciousness of their own, such as Poland, have forever passed behind the Iron Curtain. So I feel strongly that we should maintain the contact of trade.
Now I come to the question of what should be prohibited. The first thing to bear in mind is that it is an extraordinarily difficult question. In the present state of the world, it would be wrong to supply armaments or machine tools used exclusively for making armaments to potential aggressors, but difficulty arises in the case of tools which can be used for other purposes as well. In dealing with manufactured articles, the President of the Board of Trade said that we would not allow these to go out of Britain if we or our friends wanted them. Would the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Supply deal with the following point? There might be manufactured articles which we and our friends do not require but which might be capable of being used for manufacturing armaments. In such a case, would it be Government policy to permit the export of those articles to Russia? I think that was a gap in the speech of the President of the Board of Trade.
Next, there is the question of raw materials. There, the main principles on which the Government are acting are right, that we must not let raw materials go out of our possession or be sold if we need them ourselves, either for our civilian needs or for the re-armament programme. It is important, however, that as regards manufactured articles, machine tools, and raw materials, such as wool and rubber, we should act in the closest co-operation with our friends in the


Western world. It is no use our prohibiting an export from Britain if another country can supply it.
There must be more than periodical consultation. This question is closely bound up with the general Defence arrangements of the West. I should like to see an economic organisation set up in connection with the North Atlantic Treaty which would survey the whole raw material and manufactured article position. Such an organisation should not deal merely with the prohibition of exports, although it would have to deal with that, bearing in mind the need for all countries which are in the Atlantic Pact to have a common policy. Such an organisation should pay heed to the position as regards supply of raw materials as well.
The question of raw materials is bound up with that of stock-piling. Indeed that was apparent from the speech of the right hon. Member for Aldershot (Mr. Lyttelton). That brings me to the suggestion which was made at the Council of Europe by the hon. Member for Coventry, North (Mr. Edelman) that we should consider the setting up of joint purchasing agencies which would prevent competition between members of the Atlantic Pact who are all bent on stockpiling essential raw materials. Prohibition of the export of finished articles and raw materials to Russia and her satellites and the building up of our stocks are all part of one large question which should be dealt with at an early date by an international organisation, and I should like an assurance from the Government that such an organisation is being considered with some urgency.
It is not an easy problem because, while such an organisation would function more easily in connection with the Atlantic Pact countries, we have to consider the position of friendly countries not in that Pact, such as Sweden, Turkey, Greece, Ireland and a potentially friendly country, Yugoslavia. There must obviously be some liaison all the time with those countries to prevent leakages of essential articles and also to prevent competition in the purchase of materials. I hope that this international aspect of the matter is being studied now. Whether we like it or not, there will have to be a great deal of planning on this matter in

the next few months. That planning must be international and I hope the Government have already set it in motion.>

6.57 p.m.

Mr. Edelman: The hon. Member for Merioneth (Mr. Emrys Roberts) was good enough to refer to a proposal which I made at Strasbourg for a joint purchasing board for stock-piling and pre-emption. I want to develop that point in connection particularly with the speech made by the hon. Member for Bury and Radcliffe (Mr. W. Fletcher), who, having shot his bolt, has disappeared.
I must confess that, as I listened to the speech of the hon. Member for Bury and Radcliffe, my feeling of distaste for the sanctimoniousness with which he defended the rubber producers steadily increased. As he tried to indicate how the extravagant increase in the price of rubber was, in his view, due to the operation of the natural causes of supply and demand, I could not help feeling that he was excluding entirely the fact that rubber on the Singapore free exchange has increased in price two-fold since the Korean war broke out, standing today at 4s. compared with the already high price of 1s. some months ago.
Because there is this lack of control over the price of this essential commodity, it is natural that the speculation which has taken place should be used by the Communists to distract attention from the fact that it is speculation brought about by aggression which the Communists have provoked. But although that is the case, it is no consolation to men who are fighting and dying in the Malayan jungle or in the Korean mountains to think the war is resulting in vast and uncontrolled profits reaching people who perhaps have never caught sight of the commodity itself.
What is true of rubber is also true of wool and tin. In the case of tin we have the figure published in "The Times" today which shows that this commodity rose in price to £850 per ton by the middle of August—a rise of £200 on its pre-Korean level. If I were in the Services today, I should feel nauseated by the company reports of those firms now engaged in trading in the basic materials of war. Day after day we read in those reports that "the position is brighter" because, owing to the war demands of


various countries throughout the world, the price of the commodity in which they deal has gone up. This is a state of affairs which must be brought to an end as soon as possible if the morale, not only of the fighting Services, but also of the workers at home, is to be maintained.

The question is: How can this be done? The hon. Member for Bury and Radcliffe suggested that there are no practical means of controlling the natural operation of supply and demand.

Mr. Nabarro: Hear, hear.

Mr. Edelman: That view is echoed from the other side. Surely, however, we have succeeded in controlling those forces at home. We have succeeded in the past in taking much of the profit out of war, and it would be shameful if on an international scale we continued to allow the speculation in commodities which is now going on and which is inflating prices, not only for our allies, but also for ourselves.

Mr. Nabarro: Would the hon. Member suggest how we can effectively prevent, for instance, the Russians from buying in a free commodity market for tin, which is the very cause of the steep rise in price to which the hon. Member referred?

Mr. Edelman: That is precisely the suggestion I was about to make. The rise in the price of rubber, for example, is due to the fact that not only ourselves, but the Americans and Russians, are stockpiling. If we look at the Russian stockpiling, we really have cause for alarm. Whereas in 1938 the Russians imported only 26,000 tons of crude rubber, last year they imported 105,000 tons, a great deal of it from the very rubber producers against whom they have instigated the rebellion in Malaya. The question, therefore, which faces us is what machinery can we devise in order to bring some control into the present chaotic commodity market.
The hon. Member for Merioneth referred to my suggestion that we should as speedily as possible, in conjunction with our allies within the Atlantic Pact and with any others who are prepared to associate themselves with us, revive the Combined Purchasing Board, which would enable us both to stockpile and to buy ahead of the Russians and so prevent

them, without an embargo or a blockade, from getting essential war materials. That, surely, could be done very quickly, and I recommend the suggestion to my right hon. Friend on the Front Bench.
I was glad to observe that the right hon. Member for Aldershot (Mr. Lyttelton) spoke in extremely moderate terms about our trade with Russia. The right hon. Gentleman has had great experience of that trade. The companies with which he has been associated have themselves done a great deal to build up Soviet industrial power. Indeed, although the right hon. Gentleman may today be a little shy about the fact, it should perhaps be widely known that he bears the Order of Suvarov, 1st Class, U.S.S.R.

Mr. Lyttelton: Not for building up trade with Russia, but for being the Minister nominally in charge of the northern convoys.

Mr. Edelman: I do not wish to draw fine distinctions in the contributions which the right hon. Gentleman has made towards Russian security. I mention that simply to indicate that all people of goodwill want to see a bridge retained as long as possible across the chasm which now divides Europe. Most of us believe that that can be done by means of trade.
Quite obviously, there are certain machines and machine tools which could not, and should not, be exported, because of the grave damage which they might bring if they were to fall into the hands of an aggressor, actual or potential, but it is precisely because the Government recognised that, not when the Leader of the Opposition made his broadcast, but 18 months ago when the Order was made—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"]—forbidding the export of such machinery, that they drew up the Order which has created a steadily lengthening list of machine tools whose export is controlled or prohibited according to the changes in the international situation.
I detected a tendency on the part of hon. Gentlemen opposite to denounce contracts which were entered into with the Soviet Union with our eyes wide open. We entered into those contracts because we expected to receive reciprocal benefits from Russia. In fact, we have done so; we have had timber sufficient to build over 300,000 houses. Most of that timber


has gone into those houses, and had we not had it, the timber situation in Britain today, which is precarious, might well have been disastrous.

Mr. R. S. Hudson: Absolute nonsense.

Mr. Edelman: It would be dishonourable if, having enjoyed the benefits of a contract which we entered into with either the Soviet Union or her associated countries, we were now to withdraw from the obligations of that contract merely because today it might be more convenient not to discharge it.
In the case of two vertical lathes manufactured in Coventry—machine tools which have been the subject of discussion with the Ministry of Supply for some months—I observe that one of the arguments advanced against completing the contract was that, in order to replace that particular machine tool, we would have to pay twice as much in dollars from America. I do not know whether there is any support for that argument from the benches opposite, but surely if we endeavour to break a contract merely because, during its currency, we find that it would be more convenient or profitable not to fulfil it, then I cannot help feeling that we would not be acting honourably nor following the best British commercial traditions.
I fail to see why we should reserve for any country, whether it be the Soviet Union, Bulgaria, Poland or any of the satellites, treatment in which British industrial and commercial firms would not engage if the the firms contracted with were British companies. For these reasons, I feel that it is our duty to persevere as far as possible, subject to the reservations that we do not export machinery or materials of war, in discharging the contracts which we have entered into.
The hon. Member for Woking (Mr. Watkinson) has suggested that it is wrong to export any heavy machine tools at all to any country whatsoever. Everyone knows that our machine-tool industry, both before and since the war, has built up a great deal of its prosperity on the export trade. In Coventry, before the war, there would have been mass unemployment among machine-tool makers but for orders from Russia. They were of great value, not only to our manufac-

turers but to the workers also. The effect of the 1936 trade agreement with Russia, when we gave her a credit of £10 million, was really to build up the machine-tool industry in this country so that when war broke out the industry was expanded and prepared to meet its new obligations. I believe that if in future we try to limit the extent of our machine-tool industry only to the capacity of our domestic industry to absorb its products, we will be sterilising the industry and will prevent it from having the virility which it has shown in the past and will I am sure, show in the future.
I want to say a few words about the case of those machine-tool manufacturers who have had Russian orders and who have them today. It is extraordinary that manufacturers like Mr. Greenwood, of Craven Brothers, seem to have had their attack of conscience only when they were caught red-handed by the Leader of the Opposition engaged in the discharge of Russian orders. Everyone knows that for years before the war this company, like many other machine-tool companies, did a very profitable business in the export of machinery to Russia. They were quite satisfied to do it, and the pattern of our exports of machine tools to Russia before the war was in effect little different from what it is today.
I have figures showing approximately how the £10 million credit which we gave to the Russians in 1936 was eventually allocated through our various industries. Nearly half was spent on machine tools; 20 per cent. on ships' machinery, turbines and generators; another 20 per cent. on presses and metallurgical equipment, and the rest on precision instruments. That particular pattern has not altered very much since 1945. As I said, it is right that we should restrict our sales to Russia to machines which cannot be used to our detriment. At the same time, my view is that we should as far as possible continue to engage in the export of machine tools to Russia.
In 1945, when we thought we could look forward to a period of trade, if not of complete amity, with Russia, we welcomed the fact that in the political division of Europe, at a time when the machine-tool industries of Western Germany, France and Belgium were all reviving and tending to direct their exports into the western hemisphere, we


had the prospect of sending our mechanical products, machines and machine tools into the natural markets of Eastern and South Eastern Europe from which we could hope to receive the raw materials, the basic products, which we needed so badly in this country. When eventually, as I hope will be the case, we reach a modus vivendi with the Soviet Union, when we have averted the perils of war, I believe the trade which exists today in embryo may be the means by which, even if we never reach a final political understanding with Russia, we will have the means of living together in understanding for our mutual benefit.

7.14 p.m.

Mr. Oakshott: I wish to say one thing to the hon. Member for Coventry, North (Mr. Edelman). He said that my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition had caught Craven Brothers red-handed in sending orders to Russia. Surely he is quite mistaken. Is it not quite clear that this came to the notice of my right hon. Friend because they sent all the correspondence, a full dossier, to him, and there is no question of catching them red-handed?
I cannot follow the hon. Member in regard to the rubber planters in Malaya because I do not know enough about that matter, but surely he is being a little ungracious to them because they are trying to carry on their business, which is an extremely helpful one to us in view of the dollars they earn us, in the face of a full-scale war in the middle of the territory where they are trying to work. We should remember that and recognise it.
I agree with the hon. Member on one point. I think the suggestion he postulated of a purchasing commission of ourselves, the Atlantic Pact countries, our allies and the Dominions for these raw materials is a very good one. Did the hon. Member use the word "preemption," or did I misunderstand him?

Mr. Edelman: indicated assent.

Mr. Oakshott: The hon. Member did. That smacks a little of the famous canard of the economic blockade of which hon. Members have been accusing us.

Mr. Edelman: The point I was making is that pre-emption is in fact going on

in an unorganised way. The Russians are the leaders in these acts of pre-emption and it is about time we caught up.

Mr. Oakshott: I agree, but there is a difference between unorganised and organised pre-emption. Organised preemption was the main weapon of the Ministry of Economic Warfare and the purpose was an economic blockade.
I want to take the hon. Member up on another matter, not so much connected with the positive side of the question of heavy machine tools and raw materials, but rather the other side of the coin. I should like to allay a certain anxiety which I know exists among many people about the possible effects which the stopping of these things may have on our housing programme, as a result of retaliatory action on the part of the Russians. I have to declare an interest in this because, for the whole of my adult life except the war years, I have been engaged in the softwood timber trade. I think I am almost the only Member of this House with a direct interest in it. Although I would not presume or claim to speak with authority, I know a certain amount about it.
I know that an impression exists among a great many people, a certain uneasiness, that if we are to stop the exports of heavy machinery, our housing programme may be seriously affected, prejudiced and greatly retarded by any action Russia may take in retaliation by stopping supplies of softwood timber, for which we have contracts with them. This impression is fairly widely held, and this afternoon the President of the Board of Trade, in his remarks about trade with Eastern Europe, made some reference to the question of timber.
I am all in favour, as I am sure we all are, of what I would call safe trade with all those countries as much as possible, and we certainly need all the timber we can get. This is not the moment to express my views on bulk or centralised buying in general, or on that sort of buying of timber in particular. I am glad that the President of the Board of Trade has now come into the Chamber. I hope he will forgive me if I say I cannot quite follow him in some of his calculations and I must also disagree with the hon. Member for Coventry, North.
The facts in regard to the timber from the Soviet Union should be clearly stated. I think that then it will be found that this anxiety, which I know exists, is to a great extent ill-founded, and the possible effects on our housing programme have been very much exaggerated. It is no doubt quite possible that in certain circumstances Russia may decide to withhold certain supplies of softwood timber. I would very greatly regret any reduction in our timber imports, in this year of all years when our supplies are so deplorably low, but if this action were taken I do not think it would have the effect on housing which is feared by so many people and which has been suggested. I submit to the House that neither our Government nor the feelings of the people in the country as to the advisability in the interests of national safety of stopping the exports of materials and machinery should be swayed by this consideration.
I am deeply aware, as is every hon. Member, of the extreme seriousness of the housing situation. Indeed, in my own constituency it is very grave and very harassing, but I do not think it is right to make it appear worse than it is. It is only causing uneasiness amongst people. There is a great deal of loose uninformed talk about Russian softwood timber in connection with housing. Someone has made the calculation by a feat of arithmetical legerdemain that as there are 1.6 standards of timber in a house, and as the recent Russian contract was for 153,000 standards, it will supply us with enough timber for 100,000 houses; that if that is cut off the number of houses built will be reduced by that number, which is roughly half the total programme for the year. That is the story which is put about. I have heard it and the people in the country are getting that impression. I do not wonder that they are greatly worried about it. It is not true. It is only right and proper that the facts should be stated.
I do not want to bore the House with technicalities but the facts are quite simple. The production of Russian saw-mills does not run heavily to the sizes of timber we can use in house building. We have to rely on Canada and other countries for that. We get only a comparatively small proportion of sizes for building houses from Russia. Recently a parcel of .350 standards was landed in this country. Out

of it less than 10 per cent. could be used for building houses. I should be very surprised if out of the whole of the Russian contract, timber could be produced to build more than 30,000 houses at the very outside. Perhaps it was misleading of the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade to say that as we have 500,000 standards from Eastern Europe we can build 340,000 houses. I doubt it very much.

Mr. H. Wilson: I know that the hon. Member is well versed in these timber statistics from his connection with the trade, but would he not agree that while a considerable volume of the Russian timber is not used for housing, as I readily admit, it may be used in substitution, which enables other timber to be used for housing which would otherwise be required for essential purposes.

Mr. Oakshott: I partly agree with the right hon. Gentleman, but my purpose in bringing up the matter is to dispel the very widely held impression that any reduction in the amount of timber we get from Russia, although it is greatly to be deplored, will seriously reduce our housing programme.
There is another thing to be remembered. The Russians could not hold up the whole quantity of the timber whatever happens, because a substantial amount of it has arrived here already. Any reduction that might take place might be serious, but it is a different thing from suggesting, as is suggested, that the whole of our housing programme would be cut in half this year. People should not be led to believe that if we stop the sale of this heavy machinery and these raw materials and the Russians retaliate by withdrawing our softwood supplies, our housing programme will be seriously affected. It is not true and it is quite wrong to cause further uneasiness on a subject already very grave. It is only distracting attention from the real aim, which is that we should not send to the aggressors, machinery that can be used in the manufacture of armaments which might well be turned against our own forces.

7.25 p.m.

Mr. Frederick Elwyn Jones: I should like, firstly, to make some observations upon a statement of the hon. and gallant Member for Stockport,


North (Wing Commander Hulbert), who is unfortunately no longer in the House, but which I think was one of the most politically immoral and cynical ever made in the history of the House. I refer to it because I think it is important that it should not be left unchallenged, and because the hon. Member for Bebington (Mr. Oakshott) reflected that same view in the part of his speech where he said that, as the Russian timber had been landed here, we should not worry about our part of the bargain.

Mr. Oakshott: I should not like to give that impression, and I am sorry if I did. What I think I said was that the Russians could not cut off the whole of the amount for which we have contracted, because a great deal of it had already arrived here. There is no innuendo or implication about it.

Mr. Jones: I am glad that the doctrine of the freedom to repudiate contracts when they become inconvenient is not one held by the hon. Member. To return to the statement of the hon. and gallant Member for Stockport, North; he said, "We should now pay more attention to realities than to treaties." If there is one thing that this world needs now, it is to observe the sanctity and binding force of treaties undertaken and entered into.
I am not surprised that my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade did not display his usual confidence when making his announcement to the House today of the repudiation by the Government of part of their solemn undertaking to the Government of Poland. I am not surprised that the words rather stuck in his gullet, because they did not become him very prettily. I am referring to the decision to prevent the export to Poland of goods which were not the subject of export prohibition when they were ordered, and when the contract in regard to them was entered into. It is an unhappy decision for many reasons. It only relates in the case of Poland to two machines.
My view is that the harm that this repudiation will do to the name of Britain and to our tradition of maintaining our contracts will be far worse than any disadvantage we might suffer in the immediate field of military potential by the export of these two machines. The word of the Englishman, as my hon. Friend

the Member for Coventry, North (Mr. Edelman) said just now, has throughout history been his bond, and I am astonished at the levity with which this breach of a solemn undertaking has been regarded by hon. Members on the other side of the House. I deeply regret that in this matter of the two machines a breach of contract has been condoned, nay, instigated, by the Government so far as the companies responsible for performing those contracts are concerned.
It is particularly regrettable that this has been done because of the country to which it relates, namely Poland. The amount of machinery that Poland has taken from this country since the war has gone to help to reconstruct her shattered land. After the war we generously contributed through U.N.R.R.A. to the immediate rehabilitation of Poland. The millions we gave, helped to save the Polish people from mass starvation. These machines which we had to send would help in the same process of reconstruction. I have had the privilege of visiting Poland on Government missions on two occasions since the war. The first was in 1946. I was very shocked when I saw shattered Warsaw, which had been destroyed systematically, building by building. I can hardly speak of it without emotion. In 1949 I had the privilege of revisiting the city again. The great desolate area of the Warsaw ghetto, where hundreds of thousands of people were murdered was being rebuilt and a fine city was rising out of the ashes. Poland is rebuilding its land.
What is going to be the effect upon the Polish people of this announcement that we are repudiating our solemn undertaking to deliver two machines? How is that going to win us the friendship of the peoples of Eastern Europe? Poland during the war lost about one-third of its people. Millions of them were scientifically put to death in gas chambers. Her industries were deliberately destroyed, her machinery stolen. There was a determination that Poland should no longer be a free nation.
We owe a great debt to Poland. This is no way of honouring it. Let us look at the terms of the Anglo-Polish Agreement. In March last year, we gave a pledge to Poland that there would be no discrimination against her in carrying out orders placed under the terms of that agreement.


What are we doing now? Is not this discrimination? Of course, it was right that in March, 1949, we should produce a list of materials the export of which thereafter we would prohibit. But is it right to make that decision retrospective when we have given a contrary undertaking in an international agreement?
On their side, the Polish Government guaranteed to export specific quantities of various foodstuffs over the five-year period covered by the Anglo-Polish Agreement. Poland has kept her word. The Polish people are raising their standard of living more and more. I saw it myself between 1946 and 1949. But we must remember that they cannot easily spare these foodstuffs. They are making sacrifices to send them to us. In 1949, they sent us 13 million eggs. After the war, Polish children were suffering from malnutrition and there was an enormous incidence of tuberculosis. They needed those eggs, but the sacrifice had to be made. The same applies to Poland's export of bacon, of which she sent us 20,000 tons in 1949. The Poles have taken special steps through their farms to provide for the special needs of the British market in the matter of bacon. For instance, they are concentrating on breeding pigs that produce the kind of bacon which the Englishman likes for breakfast.
The Polish people have gone far to try to meet our requirements, and, in view of those circumstances, this treatment of the Polish nation and of the Polish Government is churlish. Again, they have made further sacrifices to expand very substantially their exports of timber to this country. In 1949, they exported to this country £3,308,000 worth of timber. No doubt the hon. Gentleman opposite may tell us that it was not all used for housing, but, presumably, it was needed for some important purpose and if it had not been obtained from Poland it would have had to be obtained from elsewhere. However, a good deal of it obviously did go into housing, and the Polish people need houses more than we do. Here, again, there is sacrifice on their part. What are we sacrificing? Let us make a sacrifice; let us take a risk on this occasion, and not go down this cynical road of repudiation of our contracts.
It is no use rendering lip service to the advantages of Eastern and Western trade.

There must be give and take, and there must even be the taking of certain risks. The trade between East and West should be promoted to the mutual advantage of both. The economies of these areas are complementary. One of the difficulties of the post-war world is that the volume of East-West trade has greatly diminished. It ought to be increased. It will not hurt anybody, but will advantage all of us. I do not deny that the present difficulties that confront us are very real, and I fully appreciate that the decision which the Government have come to must have been very distasteful to them. But, nevertheless, we must beware of shutting down the lines of communication between the two parts of the world. Those lines must be kept open as much as possible.
I implore the Government to give attention to one of the two agencies in Europe where the United Nations are still operating harmoniously together. The first is the prison in Spandau where the Four-Power guard is detaining the war criminals condemned at Nuremberg. I will say nothing about those gentlemen as I had a little part in the process which resulted in their getting there. The second agency is the Economic Commission for Europe. If there is any chance of increasing the volume of trade instead of rushing to the alternative of entering into a period of economic blockade, I would ask that every opportunity be taken of using that agency to increase the volume of trade between East and West. At any rate there is no sabotage of that by the Eastern countries. They welcome it, and they require it. I hope that there may still be the possibility of a joint economic-contribution by the members of the United Nations through that economic agency for the development of the backward areas of Eastern Europe and of Russia itself.
Separately, the nations of the world are making great efforts to deal with what Lord Boyd Orr has called the major challenge of our time, namely, the rapid increase in the population of the world at a time when the quantity of food the world is producing is on the decrease. It is a combination of circumstances which may well result in overwhelming catastrophe for the world. We have to face these problems. Re-armament does not solve them; bitter words pronounced in East or West do not solve them.


Ultimately, the two worlds must come to terms to make one world, and trade is now about the last instrument to make that possible. Hard words, even battles are now dividing the political world, but I implore those concerned to make another effort in the economic field to keep open the possibility of reconciliation through trade, because the great problem of world hunger is one that will and does beset us all.
So far as this country is concerned, rationed as we are, it is only right that we should remember that we are getting more than our share of world supplies. We can make our contribution by helping the backward areas with tractors, electrical equipment, and the machinery needed to turn deserts into fertile plains, to cultivate the wilderness, and to develop the ill-equipped lands. Some time ago I ventured to emphasise that these are the ways to deal with the problem and the challenge of Communism. We shall not deal with it by hysteria or by the repudiation of contracts solemnly entered into.

7.38 p.m.

Captain Ryder: The hon. Member for West Ham, South (Mr. Frederick Elwyn Jones), has extended in the Debate his reference to the sanctity of contracts without considering the circumstances at which we have now arrived, and he has applied it to the two machines which, we have been told, are used primarily for making guns with which to destroy people. I do not think that any one of us feels that this argument should carry great weight at the present time. It has been said from this side of the House that we are not suggesting that restrictions should be applied to ordinary things such as tractors, and so on. But when it comes to these particular machines, all I can say is that I wish hon. Members opposite would apply the same tenderness towards the broken contracts which have recently taken place in the Canadian newsprint industry.
In continuing this Debate I am not speaking as an expert in the engineering industry. I make no pretence to do so, but I feel I am voicing an opinion very widely held that the revelations made concerning the supply of these large boring machines have come as a distinct shock to the country. No useful purpose

is served by trying to allot blame for what has happened in the past. We are far more concerned with making sure, and getting a categorical assurance, that this matter is going to be firmly attended to in the future.
I listened with great attention to the statement made by the President of the Board of Trade and I am a little uncertain whether we have had the categorical assurance we should like to have. I rather took him to say that, in fact, such machine tools would be exported to countries behind the Iron Curtain unless they were required by this country or by our Allies. I should like the Government to extend their assurance and to say that we shall not export these instruments of war to countries who are potentially hostile to us, even if they are not required by us.
The main evidence has been given in some detail already by my right hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot (Mr. Lyttelton) and others. I do not wish to cover the same ground. If, indeed, the Government have been sending our men, some young and some untrained soldiers, to Korea to the back door and, at the same time, have been supplying not the weapons of war, but, even worse, the means for mass-producing those weapons, by the front door, I feel they have a very serious charge to answer. They have a very serious charge to answer if, indeed, that has been going on and if they have been caught red-handed.
When we on this side of the House raise this matter I do not think we should be put off by counter-charges that we are seeking an economic blockade of the Soviet Union. It has been quite clearly stated that that is not what we seek. We are sticking quite firmly to specific, precise matters of war potential. If, for example, one caught a man climbing through the scullery window and took his revolver off him, one would not expect to be charged with theft. There is a very similar state of affairs now. I hope we shall have a clear statement by the Government and that they will not try to draw the wool over our eyes by any carefully worded Amendment or by any counter-charges, such as I have mentioned.
Far more serious than the export of these machines to countries behind the Iron Curtain is the fact that, apparently,


we are allowing Russian experts to go round visiting our factories and making their notes, perhaps looking at our blue prints and then being able to report back through their Embassy, on matters which may be confidential, secret or vital to this country. One would have thought that after the case of Dr. Fuchs we should have taken steps already to prevent this possible leakage of vital secrets. But, if I recall aright, when the Prime Minister made his announcement about the Fuchs case, he implied that one could not very well stop that sort of thing happening without recourse to police methods which would be reprobated in this country.
Here is a clear case where vital secrets might be taken away easily, and all the Prime Minister had to say the other day in the Defence Debate was:
We are anxious to do all we can to prevent the export of such goods as are likely to reach North Korea."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 12th September, 1950; Vol. 478, c. 972.]
I should have thought that some far greater assurance was needed in this matter than a mere expression of anxiety. These Russians, each an expert in his own way, are sent over here to find out and spy out the land and report back to their country. I look upon their presence as the most serious aspect of the whole business that has yet been mentioned.
It has been mentioned in the American newspapers that we are exporting molybdenum to countries behind the Iron Curtain. Are we or are we not sending molybdenum to the Soviet Union and her friends? Is this charge against us justified? I understand the United States Senate has passed a resolution prohibiting the export of molybdenum to those countries that pass it on behind the Iron Curtain. Could we have a statement from the Government whether this charge applies to this country or not? Surely, if it does not, we are entitled to have it repudiated officially without delay. As far as I know, that has not yet been done.
I understand that molybdenum is a metal in great scarcity which is not only used for hardening cutting tools but has a particular application to jet engines. We have already supplied the Soviet Union with the jet engine. Are we now supplying the missing link which will enable the Russians to have a lot more? We have also been accused in the

American newspapers and by a member of the House of Representatives, of not co-operating in atomic control. We have been accused of passing atomic control "gadgets" to the Netherlands. Is there any objection to passing these to the Netherlands? What is behind this charge? If we are being charged by America, can we be told exactly what lies behind it and have the charge repudiated, so that the matter does not give rise to a spirit of acrimony between ourselves and our Allies?
Let me turn now to the question of our trade policy, in general, with the Soviet Union. Great play has been made, and with justification, that we must carry on this trade with the Soviet Union because there is no other country from which we can buy the timber and coarse grain we require. Surely, if that is so, then at the same time as we face the immediate problem, we should set in train measures to supply these deficiencies from countries within the Commonwealth. What are we doing, as a long-term policy, in respect of coarse grain?

Mr. John Lewis: Is not the hon. and gallant Gentleman aware that every step has been taken to obtain timber and other materials from the Commonwealth, that we are getting from them all they are able to supply and that we are forced to look elsewhere in order to supplement those supplies?

Captain Ryder: I understand that we made a proper mess of the purchase of timber and that, because we were not satisfied with the price the Canadians were offering, we turned it down so that, naturally, they sold it to the United States of America.

Mr. Pannell: There was a dollar shortage.

Captain Ryder: Yes. That brings me to the next point. If, instead of sending these important machine tools to Russia, we sold them to Canada, we should have had the dollars with which to purchase timber from Canada. If, now, as the Government seem to suggest, we are to cut down the exports of these important machine tools to Russia, what steps are the Government taking to find an alternative market for them? If we look ahead that is a question to which attention should be given.
We should also consider the long-term consequences of supplying to the Soviet Union the special machine tools to which my right hon. Friend referred. It would be well to recall the enormous advantages which this country had as a result of being first in the field in the industrial revolution and the enormous effect which the industrial revolution in this small country had on the whole of the world. The Soviet Union, a vast country with a population over four times as great as our own, with enormous resources, is now starting her own industrial revolution and, as regards her expansion she is probably 100 years behind us. In 1950 it has reached the relative state of expansion which this country had reached about 1850.
In building up the efficiency of the Russian factories to the high state of efficiency of our own factories, we are, of course, greatly accelerating the industrial expansion of Soviet Russia. We should ask ourselves whether we wish to accelerate the growth of a trade rival of such extent. It is a matter which requires very careful consideration. After all, we have inherited a great wealth of talent, technical skill, scientific knowledge and knowledge of metallurgy which has given us a great start and a great advantage over our trade competitors, but we have learnt some hard lessons from Japanese competition. Here we face another potentially great rival. Our heritage was our skill. If we pass this skill over the Iron Curtain by allowing Russian inspectors to go round our factories, are we not selling our heritage for a mess of pottage—coarse grain?
In conclusion, I would ask the Government not to try to pass this matter off with any of the staff phrases such as "The matter will be under constant review." I have always been distrustful of these staff phrases. I once served on the staff of a very distinguished army commander where these phrases were in common use and I remember asking for a definition of some of them. For instance, there was "Referred to higher authority." That mean that an extensive search had failed to reveal the papers on that subject. "Under active consideration" was another; and that, I was told, meant that there was some recollection of the subject and that it would be looked into. There was

"Under consideration," which I think is the same as "Under review"; that meant that the subject was far too controversial to give a direct answer on it.
I ask the Government not to give the answer "Referred to higher authority," nor "Under active consideration," nor "Under review," but that we should have a very much clearer and more categorical announcement on the question of the export of military materials to Russia.

7.57 p.m.

Mr. Pargiter: The hon. and gallant Member for Merton and Morden (Captain Ryder) was good enough to say at the beginning of his speech that he knew very little about the problem of machine-tool production. By the end of his speech I quite agreed with him. I do not know why we are worrying about the export of one or two machines to Poland, or even to Russia, if they are 100 years behind us in their industrial development, as the hon. and gallant Member says. The words he used were that in 1950 they are only at the stage that we had reached in 1850.

Captain Ryder: Perhaps I may put the hon. Gentleman wise on that. It was a relative comparison; whereas we have been expanding for 100 years, they are now beginning, with an enormous expansion ahead of them.

Mr. Pargiter: I appreciate that interruption, but the hon. and gallant Gentleman said they are 100 years behind us; in other words, they are now, in 1950, where we were in 1850.

Captain Ryder: I am sure the hon. Member does not want to misquote me and—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Order. The hon. Member for Southall (Mr. Pargiter) does not give way.

Mr. Pargiter: I gave way immediately to the hon. and gallant Gentleman in order that he might clarify his position but he did not in any sense alter the terms of his remarks that the Russians are now where we were in 1850.

Captain Ryder: rose—

Mr. Pargiter: I cannot give way again. If, in 1950, they are where we were in 1850, then I do not think we should worry about their war potential.
The most interesting thing about the Debate has been its changed character. After the blood and thunder of the right hon. Member for Woodford (Mr. Churchill) and his recent broadcast about banning all war potential and war materials, machinery and so on, this Debate seems to have descended considerably. I suppose that hon. Members opposite have been doing a little thinking since the broadcast. It is rather interesting to consider what we could export which would not be in some respect war potential, certainly as far as capital goods are concerned. There is no machine used for the fabrication of metal or of wood, or even for the fabrication of fabrics, which cannot be regarded as war potential. We might as well be quite clear about where we are.
It is fairly obvious that before this Debate the intention of hon. Members opposite was an economic blockade. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] It is no good hon. Members opposite saying "No" at this stage when all the statements they have made have urged a ban on the export of any potential war material either to Russia or to her satellites. I stand by the statement that there is no question that there is no machinery that we produce here, or that can be produced by any of the machinery-producing countries, that cannot be war potential. The character of war has changed; and I thought that we had learned something in the last war about the destruction of the enemy's civilian morale, which is a part of the war potential. Anything that goes to production must have some bearing on war potential, and there is no possible way in which this can be avoided.
We have now come to the cases of certain specific things which the right hon. Member for Aldershot (Mr. Lyttelton) mentioned. It seems to me that here we come to the particular question of the contracts into which we have entered. How far are we entitled to abrogate a contract? It is no good saying, "Well, we have thought again about it." The answer is that if we think again about it, we have to return the goods we have received against the contract, and I would say that we are in no sort of condition to do that. It seems to me that in these circumstances, with the best intentions in the world, we ought to try our best to honour our contracts.
There may be one loophole in this connection. I do not know whether it is one or not, and I should be glad to hear from whoever replies to the Debate tonight. It lies in the question whether or not in the terms of a contract, we are bound to any specific date for the completion of the contract. It is one thing to say we will not honour a contract but it is quite another to say, "We are sorry, but we have to postpone the date of execution of this contract." That would not be repudiation, but it would enable us for a period to use the factories which are now turning out machines for Russia or her satellites for the production of machinery for ourselves.
There appears to be a good deal of misconception about boring machines. I want to make it clear that I am not talking about those boring machines that make boring speeches in this House. I am talking about those which are used in engineering production. It is interesting to note that while a very large type of boring machine may be used in the manufacture of turn-tables for turning certain types of guns, and so on, it may also be used—and is used—for turning large steel blanks for used gear generating. These machines are properly utilised not only for turning blanks for that type of gear but for cutting a helical for power generation. It may be said that power generators are war potential. I dare say they are. There is nothing that is not.

Squadron Leader Burden: If the Prime Minister could receive from Russia an undertaking that these machines would be used only for the production of civilian commodities, the situation might be helped, but I suggest that unless such an undertaking can be received, and unless the Government can expect it to be kept, we should not be doing right to supply them to Russia at this stage.

Mr. Pargiter: That is another matter which perhaps the hon. and gallant Gentleman may pursue in his speech, but it is not part of my speech. I am dealing now with machines of which it has been said that they can be used only for specific purposes, whereas they can be used for war or peace-time purposes.
There are those who say that we should not at any time export types of machinery which would help the productive capacity of other nations. If they


studied the industrial history of England, they would see how many of the large undertakings made a lot of money and established very considerable vested interests in other countries by work not unconnected with the production of machine tools, and also textile machinery, and things of that kind, in which we are pre-eminent. It would certainly be quite impossible in these days to think that we could keep to ourselves machines of this sort on the ground that if we exported them, we would enable other countries to compete with us in the production of certain types of goods. I thought that that was an outworn theory, and that it had been found impossible to operate. In the modern world, if we keep things to ourselves we may find ourselves left with them, and eventually somebody elsewhere will devise an advance on what we have.
It seems to me curious that that theory should exist today in this modern world when we are hoping to create a co-operative world—a world in which each country is going to add as much as it can to the general well-being. In such a world it is a doubtful proposition to suggest that we should not export certain types of machines in which we are pre-eminent, because some other country might be able to compete with us in finished articles produced from those machines.
One of the things that worries me is this. It will be known to many hon. Members here that one of the tactics of the Communist Party in going round the various works—engineering works, in particular—is to say that neither the employers nor the Government have been quick or helpful in operating our side of the contracts which they have made with Russia. The Communists have been saying that we have been neglectful and do not really want to fulfil the contracts. What worries me is that some of the things said in this House today are going to add very considerably to that Communist stock-in-trade. I hope it will not go out from here that we are not, in the main, honouring our contracts. I hope it will be made clear that we are honouring our contracts even if, for some limited period, we may delay completion of certain contracts because we require the benefit of that production for ourselves. I hope that that will be clearly stated, and I hope that we shall be given figures

which will show that we are honouring our contracts. Our good name depends upon it.
There is a point on the other side of the picture. While we may have decided that certain machinery should be placed on prohibited list, I understand that planing machines are to be looked at again. Big planing machines are not on the prohibited list. They are useful for many things, including planing the beds of submarine engines, and in that respect they are as much war potential as are boring machines. There is no question about that. I hope we can be given some convincing reason about the decision not to place them on the prohibited list.
In this Debate we have departed far from the original broadcast of the Leader of the Opposition, and we have got the subject down now to some practical dimensions with the discussion of what may reasonably be done in good faith. I hope that this consideration will be maintained in the House for the rest of the Debate.

8.10 p.m.

Mr. W. Hudson: I intervene quite briefl because there has come to me during the past few days some information which I regard as most disquieting and which has a direct bearing upon the question that is before the House.
Before I come to the point, I should like to refer to what the hon. Member for West Ham, South (Mr. Frederick Elwyn Jones) said in regard to the doctrine of repudiation of contracts. I want to remind the hon. Gentleman that that doctrine did not begin on this side of the House; at any rate, so far as our friends are concerned. The other point, also made by the hon. Member for West Ham, North, concerns the question of shipments to Poland of material of one kind and another. I want to suggest that, if Poland is really free and intends to remain free, she should be very thankful that some of this material may not be sent, if it is ultimately to be turned against her.
In regard to the information which has come to my notice, I say at once that I have no means of checking it, and I cannot say if it is true. I want to put the matter to the Minister in the form of questions. If there is any truth in it,


then it is most serious; if there is not, it can be denied. It will be unfair, I think, to name the firm concerned, but I am quite prepared to reveal the name to the Minister and to tell him how the information came to me.
I am informed that a large firm in this country is under contract to ship to Russia what are known as bomb moulds, and that deliveries against that contract are already in process, some of the machines passing through the port which I have the privilege to represent. Whether that is true or not, I cannot say, but I want to put it to the Minister so that he may have an opportunity of either confirming or denying that very serious suggestion. What has been said by the hon. Member for Leeds, West (Mr. Pannell), and the right hon. Member for East Stirling (Mr. Woodburn), about trade virility and the need for keeping the wheels turning in the export market, certainly cannot be said about an item like bomb moulds.
I emphasise that I am merely asking the Minister whether he knows if this is true, and, if he does not, whether he will find out; and, if it is true, what are the Government doing to stop the shipment of such important war materials. I think we are entitled to a categorical answer on that point.

8.13 p.m.

Mr. Julius Silverman: I think everybody in this House will agree that this Debate has been in the nature of an anti-climax. The storm created by the Leader of the Opposition in his broadcast and followed up by the Press has now abated. It came in as a Woodford lion and went out as an Alder-shot lamb.
I wonder why it is that the Opposition are now adopting such a different attitude? For instance, I notice that, as far as half of their Motion is concerned—that referring to strategic war materials—it has hardly been mentioned in the Debate. Apparently, the Opposition have beaten a strategic retreat from strategic war materials, and it transpires that the whole of this fuss and excitement relates exclusively and entirely to about 20 machine tools—a matter of comparative insignificance, because, even assuming that the whole of these machines, when

they reach their destination, would be used exclusively for war material purposes and no other—which is very far from being proved—it is very obvious that the effect on the military potential of Russia or of any of the other countries would be comparatively insignificant.

Squadron Leader Burden: Surely, if they are machine tools which can be used to forge one bomb or one gun to fire on the United Nations troops, or one shell to fall on a British soldier in Korea, that is sufficient cause.

Mr. Silverman: That may be so; I am not arguing that—[HON. MEMBERS: "It is so."]—we do not know. These are multi-purpose tools which can be used for a great variety of purposes, and, like so many other things, can be used possibly for war materials.

Mr. Nabarro: Not possibly, but certainly.

Mr. Silverman: All tools, and a large number of other things, are war potential. If we get pit-props from the Soviet Union, they are used to produce coal, which is a war potential. It stands to reason. Similarly, the great majority of things which form the basis of trade intercourse can be used as war potential. I am not arguing whether this or that tool should be banned; I am saying, in substance, that the whole of this campaign from the outset was a major political scare, designed entirely for the political field and nothing else.
Now, they have retreated from it, and shrink from the words "economic blockade." I do not know why. In 1933, the then Conservative Government in fact imposed as a weapon of policy an economic blockade on the Soviet Union. That was one of the irresponsible actions committed by the party opposite when in power, and it helped to create that barrier of suspicion between East and West which is responsible for the present unfortunate situation. [Laughter.] No one is more responsible than the Leader of the Opposition for that situation. It is all very well for hon. Members opposite to laugh, but there is a sorry story to be told from 1919 and 1920, when £100 million of the British taxpayers' money was used to foment and carry out a senseless war of intervention, which has to a large extent produced the bitterness which


has existed between this country and the Soviet Union ever since, and which, perhaps to no small extent, has helped to—

Squadron Leader Burden: On a point of order. Is this germane to the subject under discussion?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I have already stopped one hon. Member who was going back to 1933, and now the hon. Gentleman is going back to 1919, which is a very long time ago.

Mr. Silverman: I am simply carrying on from where the hon. Gentleman who interrupted left off; otherwise, I should not have taken the point so far.
An economic blockade is not something fresh to hon. Members opposite. There is this further point. One hon. Gentleman opposite let the cat out of the bag and showed why the Conservative Party altered their attitude. Perhaps they felt that this argument was something of a political boomerang, because the hon. Gentleman said that people were becoming scared as to the effect it would have upon our housing programme. Is that why the Tory Party have retreated from the policy which clearly meant an economic blockade and nothing else?
I am not dealing with this or that particular machine tool. I think that only the Government are in a position to assess the importance and danger of selling any particular machine tool. It is largely a question of balance of probabilities, but I want now to emphasise the extremely great importance of East-West trade. It is not just a small matter; it can become an extremely important matter, as I hope all hon. Members will agree. We have been faced with the problem of the dollar gap since the war. I think I can say that probably the greatest single cause of that dollar gap was the cessation of East-West trade which took place after the war. It ceased for the main reason that the countries of the East, on account of the devastation of their agriculture and their timber trade, had nothing to sell, and the consequence was that this trade for some time largely came to an end.
This had two effects. It meant to us that trade done between Europe and the East—I am not talking merely in terms of Anglo-Russian trade, but trade done by Germany, France and other countries

of the West with the East—was not resumed after the war. The consequence was that first we had to divert our purchases of food, timber and grain from non-dollar to dollar sources, and, in addition, on account of world scarcity which resulted and on account of these nondollar commodities going off the market, the price of the dollar commodities went up, and we found ourselves having to buy more from dollar sources, and also having to pay more for what we bought. There is no doubt whatever that that is the most serious single cause which has led to our dollar position at the present time.
That has been recognised by O.E.E.C., and it has been pointed out that it is an important problem to be solved, and that one means of closing the dollar gap is to extend as widely as possible East-West trade. It is quite true that there are some people who do not like this trade to be extended. There are some people in America who do not like it to be extended. One hon. Member opposite referred to the clamour which is taking place in the American Press. I think that it will be a very bad thing for this country if we take our policy from the clamour which occurs in certain sections of the American Press. In an election year, we always get attacks on this country, either on the basis of imperialist Britain, Socialist Britain or non-co-operative Britain. There has recently been quite a clamour for the virtual cessation of trade between this country and the Soviet Union. I cannot but think that some of that has been inspired by some of the usual dollar sources—some of the people who are financially interested. For instance, I am not justifying the high price which is being paid for rubber at the present time, but I have no doubt that some of the people in America buying rubber are not very pleased about it.

Mr. Nabarro: Surely the increases in commodity prices affecting our sales from the sterling area to the dollar area is a direct contribution towards our balance of payments? We ought to welcome it.

Mr. Silverman: I did not say that we ought not to. In spite of that, I would point out that, while it is a direct contribution, it is only a direct contribution if it can go on, and I do not believe that prices at their present inflated rate can possibly go on. We shall get a


reaction. But I am not complaining about this. I am pointing out the obvious fact that people who have to pay these prices do not like it, and that people in America who have to pay higher prices for wool do not like it. They want to exclude, if possible, a competitive purchaser from the market. Similarly, the dollar timber producers do not like the fact that Russia is on the timber market. Again, the dollar people who produce grain do not like the fact that Russian grain is on the market.
To illustrate my point, I would remind hon. Members of something which occurred in February, 1949, when Russia suddenly came on to the market with 100 million bushels of wheat. It was interesting to see the reaction. I am quoting from the "Daily Express." It said:
Russia has rocked the International Wheat Conference by tossing into the wheat pool 100 million bushels. This equals two-thirds of Britain's last year imports. The big wheat exporting countries, America, Canada and Australia, are amazed … As to the likely affect on prices, a British official said tonight that the move will have one of two results. The more likely is that Britain, already pressing for a price under 10s. per bushel because of coming world surpluses, will now drive to an easy victory with prices as low as 7s. 6d. per bushel.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I think that the hon. Member is going wide of the Motion and the Amendment. There is nothing about prices; it is only materials.

Mr. Kirkwood: The hon. Member is doing very well.

Mr. Silverman: On a point of order. Surely this matter is vital. We are discussing the question of what we sell to Russia and it is intimately connected with what we buy from Russia. I am dealing with the purchase of wheat or grain from Russia, and the effect that is going to have on the economy of this country.
I want to say, in conclusion, that it ought to be the policy of this country to put our eggs in as many baskets as possible, and to have as many people as possible and as many nations as possible clamouring to buy our goods and endeavouring to sell us goods. That seems to me to be good business, sound economics, and the correct road to peace.

8.28 p.m.

Mr. Nigel Fisher: I hope that the hon. Member for Erdington (Mr. J. Silverman) will forgive me for not following his argument, because many other hon. Members on this side of the House wish to take part in the Debate, and as time is getting on, I promise to be very brief.
I should like to refer to the attacks made by the right hon. Member for East Sterling (Mr. Woodburn) and others on the benches opposite upon the Leader of the Opposition. When the right hon. Member for Woodford (Mr. Churchill) first raised this subject in his broadcast, the nation and the whole free world was shaken and impressed by the revelations he then made. [HON. MEMBERS: "NO."] They were. The Government, who have so often been forced by events, reluctantly and belatedly, to acknowledge his prescience and adopt his policies afterwards, have done very well on this occasion to put down their Amendment, which gives us the substance of what we asked for. They have done well to ponder his words and warnings and wisdom, because they have realised, as the country realises that he has seldom been wrong in great affairs either before, during or since the war.
Commenting on the broadcast, the Secretary for Overseas Trade is reported in the national Press, on 28th August, as having said:
What is happening is that we have had to buy supplies of grain and timber from Russia, and in return we have had to make payment.
But why did we buy the grain and timber from Russia in the first place? Could we not have bought it from the U.S.A.? I know that the answer is always dollars. It is always the snap unthinking answer to anything. It is always the Socialist excuse for anything and everything in these days. In the present precarious international situation, would it not have been possible to persuade the United States to take payment in sterling, if that was the only way of preventing these machine tools from going to Soviet Russia? It is all very well for hon. Members to laugh, but did the Government even try—

Mr. J. Silverman: Does not the hon. Member know that if we had not bought


coarse grain from Russia, we should have had to buy from the Argentine and pay the prices they demanded?

Mr. Fisher: If I may be allowed to develop my argument, I will come to an alternative suggestion later on. Did the Government even try to make such an arrangement with the United States? Have they ever approached the United States Government to discuss this possibility?
I think these alternatives are worth considering in a matter of this sort. Taking up the point which has just been made, could we not have sold machine tools to Canada in return for grain and timber from her? We read recently reports in the Press that the exports of machine tools to Russia were actually increased in the first six months of this year, and yet we must need many of these tools for our own purposes at home. If we have to sell them in order to pay for something else, which I believe is the argument of the Secretary for Overseas Trade, then let us at least sell them to our friends and Empire instead of to our only potential enemy.

On the question of timber, to which the President of the Board of Trade and the hon. Member for Coventry, North (Mr. Edelman) specifically referred, there was a third alternative. We could have bought that timber in Scandinavia where the dollar difficulty does not apply, and I do not know why we did not do so. The usual time for timber negotiations is in November. Why were the Scandinavian negotiations dragged out until May and June this year, when these negotiations should have been concluded at the end of last year? We could have had up to 250,000 standards of timber from Scandinavia, which would have been of more suitable dimensions for housing purposes and would have been at a lower cost than the 150,000 standards we subsequently obtained from Soviet Russia.

Is it not a fact, when we come down to it, that it is Government buying of timber, with all its delays and indecisions, inseparably connected with bulk buying, which has led us to buy very late in the Russian market what we could have obtained earlier and more cheaply in Scandinavia, and for which, we are told, we have to export machine tools? Even in May,

1950, late as that was, when most of the timber was already sold elsewhere, we could have bought more cheaply in Scandinavia, when we have regard to the higher freight charges payable on Russian timber. Moreover, as has already been pointed out, only a proportion of the Russian timber can be used for housing purposes in view of its size.

Mr. H. Wilson: The hon. Member realises, of course, that the machine tools he is talking about were almost without exception ordered before the end of 1948, and certainly before 14th January, 1949. Up to that time, and for a long time after, we bought every stick of timber from Scandinavia and everywhere else in the non-dollar area. It was not a question of shipping these machine tools this year to pay for Russian timber.

Mr. Fisher: I was merely speaking on the assumption that the quotation I read from the statement of the Secretary for Overseas Trade represented what was, in fact, correct, when he said that what has happened is that we have had essential supplies of grain and timber from Russia and have had to make payment in return. On the question of the suitability of the timber from Russia for housing purposes, I fully appreciate, of course, the right hon. Gentleman's point that other timber is thereby being released for housing purposes, but it would be interesting to have in this connection the estimated percentage of timber under the Russian contract which conforms to the most suitable dimensions for housing purposes.
I want to turn now to another and quite different point. Despite the terms of the Government Amendment, the sale to Sweden of 80 jet aeroplanes was announced in the Press only a few days ago. Admittedly that is a good deal better than selling them to Russia, but the fact remains that we desperately need them for our own auxiliary squadrons. We hope that machines of this kind will be confined in future to our own friends and allies in the North Atlantic Pact and to our Empire. Sweden had already bought 500 Vampires when I was there last Whit-sun, and I assume that these 80 jets are additional? Are there any conditions attaching to their sale; and are the planes likely to be as effective in the hands of Sweden as in the hands of our own air crews or the air crews of allied Powers?
I am myself pro-Swedish because I have many friends there and know the country well, but we have to face the fact that there is very little chance of Sweden becoming allied to us in the North Atlantic Pact, because if there is one question on which the visitor to Sweden is left in no doubt, it is this question of neutrality. There is no political opinion in any party which favours joining the Atlantic Pact. Although she is taking her own defence extremely seriously and spending anything up to one-fifth of her taxation income on defence, we must nevertheless appreciate that she has no regular army and only nine months' conscript service, that she is a very small Power and would, alas, obviously be speedily overwhelmed by Russia in the event of an attack. What, then, would become of our jet aircraft? Either she will be successful in maintaining her neutrality, in which case the planes will not be necessary, or she will be overrun, in which case they will be wasted.
This is a most serious matter, because we know that a few Spitfires saved Britain and the world in 1940, and a few extra jet planes may well save civilisation in 1952, or at whatever time you like to put it, if they are in the right place. I am very glad to see by the terms of the Government's Amendment that they are thinking again on this whole question. I hope they will, as the phrase now is, "keep it under constant review," and will confine our sales of both jet planes and important machine tools to our friends in the North Atlantic Pact and to our Empire, or, better still, that they will keep them here at home.

8.38 p.m.

Mr. Ivor Owen Thomas: We have heard some remarkable speeches from the Oppositon benches in this Debate. They have been remarkable in more than one sense. My mind has gone back to 1939 and before in relation to the vile international trade in armaments, which was almost an accepted feature of the international scene.

Mr. Nabarro: Moscow.

Mr. Thomas: My speech is not based on Moscow but on facts. I think it is sometimes wise to have regard to the mote in one's own eye before completely eradicating your potential opponent. The armaments industry was one of the

widest international traffics in the history of the world. For instance, it was stated in connection with the 1914–18 war that a certain French industrial area, which was occupied by the German forces and was in a part where some of the most severe fighting took place, was actually owned by French armaments interests. They did what they could—and they succeeded—to prevent destruction of their own factories, which produced armaments for the international market although it meant inevitably the sacrifice of—

Mr. John Grimston (St. Albans): On a point of order. Is the hon. Member in order in taking us back to 1914?

Mr. Thomas: I am going back as far as I think fit in order to prove my case.

Mr. Nabarro: On a point of order. Earlier, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, you ruled in this Debate that 1932 was much too far back to remain in order. The hon. Member is talking about 1914.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I have tried several times to avoid going back too far. I think we might get nearer to the present situation.

Mr. Thomas: I quite understand the tenderness of Opposition Members about going too far back in the history of the armament race, which ultimately led to war, but this has relevance in bringing out the true position of the interests between the fighting soldier on the French side and the armaments interest in French industry. There is a remarkable quotation here, which I will ask the House to listen to. It comes from the evidence given by M. Albert Thomas to the Commission of Inquiry referring to happenings around this particular industrial area in France during the years of the war. The statement reads:
At the end of 1916 during the second Briand Ministry, when General Lyautey was Minister of War, I repeatedly intervened to demand the bombardment of Briey, and the Council of Ministers was "—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I cannot see how this has any connection either with the Motion or with the Amendment.

Mr. Thomas: I defer to your wishes, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, but this quotation brings out in bold relief the true cynicism of the armaments industry when their interests were threatened, even to the extent


of sacrificing the lives of their own people in order that their own interests would be preserved. Anyway, I will go on a few years. On 4th July, 1934—

Mr. Nabarro: On a point of order. Mr. Deputy-Speaker, you ruled that 1932 was too far back. May I ask for your guidance in regard to 1934? Can there be any possible relevance in this quotation from 1934, which is 16 years ago?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The Motion and the Amendment do not deal with armament firms but with the export of armaments.

Mr. Thomas: I think the quotation I am about to give is relevant to the present set up in European affairs. It deals with the Tiger Moth, which was an armament in 1934. This is the quotation:
On 4th July, 1934, the De Havilland Aircraft Company inserted in 'The Aeroplane' a double page advertisement of the 'Tiger Moth.' The text of the advertisement read as follows:
' Tiger Moth for naval and military flying training supplied to the British Royal Air Force and the Governments of Norway, Sweden, Denmark, China, Japan, Persia, Poland, Spain, Portugal and Germany.' 
Then of course, there was the case of the armaments industry continuing their operations in connection with the changes which took place in revolutionary Spain.

Sir W. Darling: Is the hon. Member aware that the Opposition Motion is to ban the exportation of heavy machine tools for armament purposes?

Mr. Thomas: I am performing the charitable, indeed, I think, the necessary duty of enabling hon. Members opposite to search their own consciences. The Tiger Moth was more than a machine tool; it was an actual weapon of war.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I cannot see how Tiger Moths, which are quite out of date, can possibly influence the Motion.

Mr. Thomas: It would be fatal for this country and the countries associated with it in the Atlantic Pact to rush into a position which would make war practically inevitable. In other words, we might as well preserve a sense of balance, and when we place a duty upon the Members of His Majesty's Government to draw a line between goods that are necessary or may be useful for war purposes and those on the other side of the line, it is giving

them a task not easy to perform. After all, if machine tools and these big machines are ordered by Eastern European countries and other nations throughout the world it does not necessarily mean that those machines are potentially war weapons.
My memory goes back to a week ago, when the Australian wool market was held in the presence of buyers from all parts of the world, who were competing for the limited Australian wool supply. They included buyers from Russia. While certain machine making tools form a war potential, is it argued that wool is not also a war potential? Unless a country can get wool to make clothes for its inhabitants it cannot make uniforms for its soldiers. The same principle applies throughout the whole gamut of modern necessities, whether for war or for peace.
The fact of the matter is that when a country enters war, the whole of its economy is transformed from purposes of peace to those of war. If we push this matter too far it may lead us to a condition of affairs in which we shall be steadily cutting down the flow of trade between the East and West and ultimately reach a condition not very much different from a state of war, which prevents all trade. This appears to be the prevention of trade upon the instalment plan. I agree with the attitude of the Government in co-operating against potential aggression that may, and certainly does, exist in the world, but it is absolutely essential to build up existing exchange relationships between the Western countries and the Eastern countries of Europe. That trade during peace is more likely to lead to understanding than discriminatory measures which leave behind little or nothing of normal world trade relationships.
Therefore I suggest that the Government should deal with this matter very carefully and have in mind the overriding purpose of preserving peace as long as possible and of furthering as far as possible the understanding that still might be achieved between Western and Eastern European countries. It is quite possible for a Government to be urged into such a state of confusion by circumstances which arise that they take too much at their face value propositions which emanate from the Opposition benches. I


am confident that in the Motion with which we are dealing this evening, and against which the Government have tabled an Amendment, there is as much electioneering propaganda as there is of real concern for the interest of this country or even for the future peace of the world.

Sir W. Darling: Nonsense.

Mr. Thomas: I am confident that such proposals are put forward at what may be considered by those who are responsible for them, the most appropriate moment from a strategic political viewpoint. The more far-seeing, realistic and cool-minded people of the country will not be urged into taking steps which, instead of conducing to the preservation of the peace of the world, might make the already strained conditions worse and lead ultimately to misunderstanding which would degenerate into war.
What we ought to seek even at this late hour is the greatest measure of cooperation. By trial and, perhaps, error, we might find that there is a response from the other side of the so-called "Iron Curtain." The tragedy at present is not so much the fundamental enmity between peoples as the ignorance and misunderstanding which exists between them. If we could break down the Iron Curtain, not in the sense that it is a hostile barrier, but in the sense that it is a barrier of ignorance and misunderstanding, we could go much further along the road to the cooperation, mutual confidence and understanding which must form the basis of a peaceful settlement of the problems of the world.
I appeal to the Government to go very carefully along this road and not to create difficulties which need not exist but to seek the greatest measure of agreement for the general benefit of all. I urge the Government not to take any steps to fan into flame the supposedly dormant fires, which might result in open warfare. That is the last thing we want. What we want is security and peace. Peace and security must replace fear as a result of common understanding and agreement.
In making any further proposals about trade restrictions between East and West the Government must not forget that it is to the benefit of Russia and her satellites as well as ourselves that the standard

of life and prosperity of all of us should rapidly improve. What a potential market there is in Eastern Europe for the things our industry can produce if we can remove the clouds of fear and misunderstanding. I hope that the Debate will enable the House and the public more clearly to realise the issues involved in the problem and that they will not be rushed into taking action which they will sincerely and tragically regret in the immediatediate future.

Mr. Sidney Marshall: Rubbish.

Mr. Thomas: I see no alternative to our taking certain safeguarding steps for the time being, but they should be taken with due regard to the consequences involved, and I hope that in the very near future we shall have a response from the other side of the Iron Curtain to justify our efforts and even our sacrifices.

8.59 p.m.

Squadron Leader Burden: During the Defence Debate, I promised the Minister of Defence that he could look to these benches for support in carrying out rearmament. I believe that I spoke for all hon. Members on this side of the House on that date. It seems to me that today, in imposing the necessary restrictions on certain materials going to Russia, the Government will look more to these benches for support than they will to their own if we are to judge from some of the speeches made by hon. Members.
I was amazed at the statement of the hon. Member for Leeds, West (Mr. Pannell) that the shop stewards of Craven Brothers had shown no resentment at the export of some of the machine tools that could forge the weapons of war. The hon. Member did not deny that many of the workers might have shown resentment, but I submit that if the shop stewards did not do so, then the public of this country are far in advance of the opinion of the shop stewards, and it is about time that some of those shop stewards, knowing the purposes for which those machine tools could be used, showed some resentment themselves.
Then we get the old red herring about my party wishing to carry out an economic blockade of Russia. Nothing of the sort. It is hon. Gentlemen opposite who have been in favour of carrying out


economic blockades. In fact, hon. Gentlemen opposite made it perfectly clear at the time when Germany was a potential aggressor, that they were in favour of carrying out economic blockade to the full. If today Russia is a potential aggressor, if we are to rearm—and we are told that Russia is the only danger—then they should equally support any measures that may be necessary to stop Russia being an actual aggressor.
I have taken one or two quotations from the speeches of hon. Members opposite. For instance, the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman) in his election address of 1945, speaking of my party and referring to Hitler, said:
They sold him the materials for rearmaments; they helped him to build submarines.
The hon. Member for Wednesbury (Mr. S. N. Evans) said:
Did they not ship British aero-engines, precious cargoes of rubber, aluminium scrap and other vital war material to feed the Nazi war machine?
Other hon. Members opposite spoke and wrote in similar terms. If they were honest in what they wrote in 1945, they should support today every measure taken by the Government and recommended from these Opposition benches to ensure that Russia does not become an aggressor.
Of course, it completely refutes their suggestion that my party would advocate a policy of complete economic blockade. We do not do that. We say that great care should be taken in deciding whether certain potentials that might be turned into active weapons should be sent to Russia or not. The hollow character of their accusations against these benches in regard to shipments to Germany was made evident in this House by the present Minister of Town and Country Planning when, in answering a Question on 27th March, 1945, he showed that the total exports of iron and steel scrap to Germany in the year 1939 amounted to 30,000 tons.
How hollow, then, are the accusations from the benches opposite against the character of this party when today most of them quibble about what should be supplied to Russia. I say to hon. Members opposite, particularly to those who are pacifist in their inclination, that they should give this party and the Government every support in denying to Russia

any materials that might be turned to aggressive purposes. The Government have long accepted that Russia is the potential aggressor. We have this vast expenditure on arms because she is a potential aggressor. We know the technique—we learnt it from Russia—and we know what are the possibilities. Now is the time to test the sincerity of the criticisms that were levelled against this party in 1945 by hon. and right hon. Members opposite. What we object to is the sending to Russia of war potentials which are of much more use for aggressive than for civilian purposes.

The question of the jet engines which were sent is a comparatively old story, and I do not wish at this point to belabour the Government on it, but there is a lesson to be learnt. Why did the Russians buy those jet engines? The Minister of Defence has told us that Russia possesses jet aircraft and in great numbers. We have learnt that they were flying them over Germany at the end of the war. I suggest that they bought those engines so that the German and Russian scientists could examine them and turn many of the technical lessons of our own experts to the advantage of the Russians. When I visited Farnborough and saw the wonderful examples of British engineering, I was prompted to wonder whether, as a result of the jet engines being sent to Russia, that country possessed jet aircraft as fast and efficient as those on show at Farnborough.

In all these questions of the high technical skill which is embodied in weapons and potential weapons, the Government should pause to consider very seriously before sending them abroad. Has not the Minister of Defence made it clear—and hon. Members opposite have said the same—that the Russians possess a great number of armaments, far greater numerically than our own? If that is so, there is far more need for us to retain the advantages of our technical efficiency so that those greater numbers can be counterbalanced by the superior technical qualities of our own arms.

Can the Government say that the valuable technical lessons we have learnt and have put into many of the goods we have sent abroad, particularly the jet engines, have not been used by the Russians? This great test should always be applied


when the Government are sending to a potential aggressor many of the high-quality engineering components and commodities that we possess. If such goods are likely to improve and increase the war potential of an enemy, then I suggest that at this stage in our international relations there is a very sound case for denying him that chance. It is the same with machine tools, and I hope the Government will look into this matter much more closely than they have done in the past. Not only hon. Members of this House, but the public throughout the whole country and in the democratic nations throughout the world, will welcome the assurance that the President of the Board of Trade gave to the Opposition today.

We have heard a lot today from hon. Members opposite about our need for obtaining from Russia timber with which to build houses and grain with which to feed our cattle. I say that this House and the country are convinced that the only reason we should deny to Russia at this stage any of the things she may desire from us, is to preserve the peace, in order that Russia shall not make war, for if there is war the whole of the arguments of hon. Members opposite fall to the ground, because then there will be no imports from Russia, no timber and no coarse grains.

For that reason alone, they should support the Government in their action in restricting the export of machine tools and other components. I believe that if we cut those dangerous exports, we can still maintain a reasonable export trade with Russia and her satellites, but I believe that the people of this country do demand that not one British soldier in Korea and not one United Nations man shall be destroyed by any bomb or weapon forged from any machine tools or exports which have gone from this country.

9.10 p.m.

Mr. Joseph Hale: My contribution tonight will be very brief because I do not wish to encroach on the time of the right hon. Gentleman who will wind up for the Opposition. As one who has had some connection with the engineering industry in this country I think one thing must be borne in mind in taking steps, which are evidently going

to be taken by the" Government, respecting the export of machine tools to Russia.
It is rather peculiar to me that we hear so little of our machine tool industry except when the threat of war, or war, is upon us. I served an apprenticeship in the engineering industry and I can assure right hon. and hon. Members opposite that in Lancashire it was considered something of a luxury for an engineer to work on a machine tool less than 30 years old. Is it surprising, therefore, that many manufacturers of machine tools are only too eager to export machine tools to anyone who will buy them? During the late war we had to import a large number of machine tools from the United States of America and I heard men in the workshops say when those machine tools were erected, "Take care of these, lads. They will have to last until the next war."
While the obligation is on the Government not to allow machine tools to go to potential enemies, responsibility is also placed on manufacturers in this country to replace their capital plant at such a rate as to keep a healthy machine tool industry in this country. The American machine tool industry has been built up because of the great internal market America has for such commodities. We know well that America is not prepared to buy machine tools in this country and has quite enough of her own. It is equally certain that Europe is quite unable to absorb the whole of the export surplus of machine tools from this country.
Where are we to sell them? [An HON. MEMBER: "Canada."] We cannot allow our already small machine tool industry to shrink. It seems to be agreed on both sides of the House that there is more than a possibility of hostilities. An hon. Member opposite mentions Canada, but is Canada prepared to take the export surplus of machine tools from this country? We cannot divide the world into two and expect the industries of all countries to flourish. Someone has to suffer if someone else suffers and it is up to the rest of the free nations of the world to compensate for that loss.
The right hon. Member for Aldershot (Mr. Lyttelton) opened the Debate in tones which augered well, but it reminded me of the story we read in "Sketches by Boz" about the election of the village beadle. No one would say anything


against him, but they said they knew someone who was a wife beater and someone who watered the soup and the other side started retaliation. I ask the Government to take great care that no machines or raw materials go to a potential enemy. I hate to hear repeated the stories that have been told from these benches of British lives having suffered as a result of the use of British materials.
I also want the Government to impress upon the other free Governments of the world that this country cannot simply be penalised for having a surplus of highly specialised tools on their hands which everyone else seems reluctant to take. It may mean the making of some arrangement in the American markets. We have markets for our commodities in most of our Dominions. Instead of bandying about across this Chamber what previous Governments did and what the present Government have done, let us recognise that we are universally agreed that none of us wants to see a repetition of unhappy things that happened in the past. Let us also not forget that this industry must survive if this country is to have a peace potential, let alone a war potential.

9.16 p.m.

Mr. R. A. Butler: We will all agree with the sentiments of the hon. Member for Rochdale (Mr. J. Hale) that the Government should take extreme care not to export any more of these valuable tools. We on this side of the House trust that that will be the result of this Debate, and if that be so it will have been extremely valuable not only to the country but also in meeting the point of view put forward by the Opposition and the House as a whole. But it is imperative for me, in winding up this Debate for the Opposition, briefly—I hope that some hon. Members on the back benches will realise that Front Bench speakers often try to allow them as much time as possible—to put one or two points to the hon. Gentleman who is to wind up the Debate for the Government with a view to ascertaining what the President of the Board of Trade did say.
Listening to the right hon. Gentleman's speech I was reminded of an episode in the life of Gladstone. One of his Ministers approached him and said, "Prime Minister, I have a very difficult if not an impossible case to put. How

shall I put it?" The worthy Gladstone replied "Do it in 55 minutes, not 15." That is precisely what was done by the right hon. Gentleman. So far as; we could ascertain from the 55 minutes of his speech he made one important remark, namely, that the export of machine tools and important war potential would be prohibited pending a general review of vital war potential in company with the North Atlantic Powers and the U.S.A.
If that simple statement was the result of the magnificent mountain of words which the right hon. Gentleman produced, the position is satisfactory, the Debate has been valuable, and it would be unreasonable to divide against the Amendment put forward by the Government. But we shall want that statement confirmed in shorter and crisper language by the hon. Gentleman who is to wind up the Debate. In order to make quite certain that he will not speak for too long I am prepared to conduct my speech up to a very late moment so as to give him a very short time in which to make that observation. If so, we may get from him something crisp and definite such as we are looking forward to hearing.
What did the right hon. Gentleman say in the mass of language he presented to us? He seemed to me to attempt to meet the arguments put forward, I think the whole House will agree, in the most moderate and clear manner by my right hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot (Mr. Lyttelton), who introduced this Debate in a way which was recognised in all quarters of the House as of a first class order. The right hon. Gentleman seemed to me to accept the case that we should not export war potential and in particular machine tools that we need ourselves for our own war effort or the war effort of what I may describe as the Allies and of the U.S.A. Secondly, he seemed to accept the case that we should not export war potential that could be used against us by any potential aggressor, to which the right hon. Gentleman referred under the general terms of the security argument.
Thirdly, that irrespective of the date—this is an important point because on this matter I am not clear that the right hon. Gentleman used language which it was possible to comprehend—I want to be quite explicit that we on this side of the


House feel that no war potential should be exported at whatever date it was ordered. That I believe to be correct, but the right hon. Gentleman so wrapped up that argument that he used language to imply that there was a differentiation between war potential which was ordered before the date of the Polish Agreement and war potential which was ordered after the date of the signature of that agreement.
I want to put to the hon. Gentleman who is replying and to the Government that our view on this side of the House is that if this war potential were ordered before, for example, February, 1949, when the Government list of prohibited exports was first drawn up, that should be prohibited equally with any material which was ordered before the Polish Agreement was drawn up. I wish to put to the right hon. Gentleman and to the hon. Gentleman who is replying this point. Would the hon. Gentleman, when replying explain what the President of the Board of Trade had in mind? Was he referring to the article in the Polish Agreement which said that notwithstanding the fact that machine tools or war potential were ordered before the agreement was signed, yet that potential should come under the agreement? If that was his intention, it was far from explicit or clear in his lengthy address. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman, who is now nodding his head, will confirm that such war material is prohibited in the general answer of the Government given earlier today.
I put those points clearly and definitely to the Government in order that we may ascertain what their view is and what, in fact, the right hon. Gentleman did say in his lengthy oration. That I have put in six minutes, and perhaps, in two minutes, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Supply will reply quite clearly so that the country and we of the Opposition in particular may be clear that we have had some definite result from this Debate.
I want to pass from these specific points to the general international angle. I read in the "Manchester Guardian" of last Saturday a statement that a Bill had been passed by the Senate of the United States authorising the spending of 17,192 million dollars for the defence of the United States:

In a solemn and united mood the Senate added to this Bill a rider offered by Senator Kenneth Wherry of Nebraska that would give the Secretary of Defence a veto power above the heads of the E.C.A. to stop all shipments under the Marshall Plan to countries that sent arms or military material to the Soviet Union or its satellites.
I read further in this article that this was done and meant as a dig and a warning to Britain. I should like to say quite categorically as a member of His Majesty's Opposition that I do not stand for receiving digs or warnings from the United States of America, and that it is no part of the object of the Opposition this evening so to divide the House on this vital issue that we expose any surface to any country in the world.
That is why I look to the Government in replying to this Debate to make quite explicit the statement made by the President of the Board of Trade so that the purpose of Britain in this vital matter may be clear to the whole world, namely, that we are not prepared either to export or, by trans-shipment from the U.S.A., to re-export—and I should like an answer on that point as well—material which is vital to our own defence effort, or which is valuable to the war potential of a possible aggressor.
There is another point before I come to one or two main issues, and that was raised by the hon. Member for Leeds, West (Mr. Pannell). The hon. Member discussed the attitude of the workers at Messrs. Craven Brothers. I hope I have never in my political career been in the pockets of anybody or any firm or any particular interest, and I certainly do not propose to start being so tonight. All I can say, on the information in my possession, is that the meeting to which he referred was about a baker's dozen of shop stewards, no doubt very honourable and eminent men, who came to certain conclusions that my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition did not exactly represent them. But surely this is quite beside the point, because the hon. Member, in concluding his speech, made it quite clear that he was against the export of these machine tools to potential aggressors. That is the sole point in which the House should be interested this evening.

Mr. Pannell: There were 25 shop stewards representing 25 departments. Surely that is an example of trade union


democracy which is the same as 600-odd hon. Members who are representatives in this House. I think that is perfectly fair. The House can take it from me that I went to considerable trouble to ensure that they were a representative body.

Mr. Butler: The hon. Gentleman, who appears to be speaking on behalf of these gentlemen, is himself against the export of this war material, and it appears that this meeting was in no way widely representative of the workers concerned. Therefore that leaves the argument of the Leader of the Opposition absolutely valid and endorsed by the hon. Member himself.
Having discussed the international angle from the point of view of the United States, and the workers' angle from the point of view of the hon. Member for Leeds, West, let me examine it from the angle of the Prime Minister himself. I ask the Prime Minister why, in answer to my right hon. Friend the Member for Woodford (Mr. Churchill), in his broadcast, he could not give the straight answer that has been attempted to be given by the President of the Board of Trade today, and why, if the Government were going to come to the House and put the Amendment on the Paper, the Prime Minister, in his broadcast, did not give us a clear answer and clear this matter out of the whole political arena and make it clear to the country that the Government was against this export of war potential?
If he had done so, he would have saved us a great deal of trouble. I say quite definitely that hon. and right hon. Members opposite are always trying to make out that we are playing party politics on this side of the House. I maintain that my right hon. Friend, the Leader of the Opposition had in his possession facts which have proved to be worthy of the attention of His Majety's Government and which have resulted in an alteration or an improvement in the policy of His Majesty's Government. That is a legitimate, and, in fact, absolutely necessary move on the part of my right hon. Friend. The people who have tried to make party politics out of this are right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite. If the Prime Minister wanted to clear the table on this subject he could

have done that in two minutes in the broadcast by a generous and honourable admission to my right hon. Friend.
The Prime Minister, in the same broadcast, asked why neither my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition nor his colleagues had made any protest at the time when these agreements were made. I should like to remind the House—and in this I can really stand before the House in a white sheet of absolute purity—that my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley (Mr. H. MacMillan) and I, in a debate on Foreign Affairs on 23rd March, 1949, specifically referred to this subject. In answer to the Minister of State, who is now Secretary of State for Scotland, we deliberately referred to these lists which were being drawn up by the President of the Board of Trade. I said on that occasion:
It really is a preposterous situation that when, in the terms of the Government's own statement by the Minister of State, the situation is being treated with contumely by the Governments of Eastern Europe, we should go on deliberately encouraging trade with them in articles which may be used for war production and for the purpose of war.
I went on to say at that time, which was around the time when the lists were first drawn up:
We should have a definite undertaking from the Government that trade in war potential will stop.
That is the answer to the Prime Minister's broadcast. I want to make a further point on this subject. I said, at the same time, in the same column and in the same paragraph:
I do not ask that all trade between East and West shall be stopped."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 23rd March, 1949; Vol. 463, c. 477.]
I proceeded in the same speech to draw attention to the importance of East-West trade.
We on this side of the House are quite clear about the advantages of maintaining open the channels of East-West trade. In answer to several hon. Members opposite, and to some on this side of the House, representing the machine tool industry, I would say that we quite understand the importance of maintaining open the markets for our machine tool industry, in the interests of the workers, in the interests of employment and in the interests of production. We also understand that the nature of this East-West trade is a very particular one. For


example, if it were an earlier hour I could detain the House by illustrating from statistics borrowed from learned journals the nature of this trade, and the nature of the trade is that we get in very much more than we send out. In fact, the extent of the export of our machine tools to Russia amounts to approximately some £5 million, in machines altogether, in the first half of this year as compared with some £11½ million imports of grain. If one takes the figures as a whole, one finds that the imports are in a relationship of about two to one of the exports.
I mention these figures because they were mentioned by my right hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot and because they indicate quite clearly, in the nature of this trade, that we are not indulging in this trade simply as depending upon our exports in order to obtain the timber, grain and other commodities which are available to us. Therefore, by stopping the export of war potential in the shape of valuable tools, I maintain that we are not in any way prejudicing the import of timber, grain or other commodities which are vital to our building programme and to our agriculture. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] If hon. Members scoff I could produce these arguments quite clearly from the issue of "The Statist" of September—page 318—to which I refer, but I have promised the hon. Gentleman that I will give him an opportunity to reply.
The fact is that those arguments from hon. Members opposite are "phoney." They know perfectly well that in matters of timber or grain we are as keen to obtain as large a quantity of these commodities from foreign sources as we can for our own agriculture or building. But had we used the Scandinavian markets for the purchase of timber in the way we ought to have done, or the Canadian market, we should have not been up against this problem as we are today.
Before the hon. Gentleman replies I want to sum up the questions I put at the beginning, and to sum them up by further reference in more detail to the machine tools mentioned by the right hon. Member for Aldershot; to discuss raw materials, to which there is a vague reference in this Amendment; and to deal with the general question of war potential. I will take, first, the 27 machine tools, including the lathe, which

I am sure gave us a rather Philips Oppenheim feeling, which is about the size of this building and would make it impossible for us to sit in a Chamber of this sort. Can the hon. Gentleman give us an undertaking, quite categorically, that the 27 tools referred to in the speech of my right hon. Friend will not be exported, subject to the review which is to be undertaken with the North Atlantic Powers and the United States of America? If he can give us that undertaking then we shall be satisfied with the result of this Debate.

Mr. Churchill: Will not be exported except subject to any agreement—

Mr. Butler: My right hon. Friend has phrased my argument more beautifully even than I could—will not be exported except subject to any agreement by the nations I have mentioned, and subject to our own consideration of our own defence needs.
Second, in regard to raw materials the President of the Board of Trade was extremely vague. He did not give us as clear an assurance as is given in this Amendment. The Amendment says:
… approves the policy of His Majesty's Government in stopping, in all appropriate cases, the export of equipment and materials likely to be required for the defence programmes of this country, of the rest of the Commonwealth, and of North Atlantic Treaty Powers. …
Can the hon. Gentleman give us an assurance that this will cover the necessary raw materials, so that we and the United States and the other North Atlantic Powers can make the stock-piles which we ought to be making at this vital time? This Amendment is the reason why we are not considering it necessary, as at present advised, to vote for the Motion. We were not however satisfied by the statement made by the President of the Board of Trade on the subject of raw materials.
Lastly, let me sum up by asking: Can we have an assurance that this review will take place expeditiously, and that suitable machinery will be established between the countries concerned, so that this review of raw materials and war potential is satisfactorily conducted; and may we be assured that what my hon and gallant Friend the Member for Gillingham (Squadron Leader Burden), said will be a fact, that we may go to bed tonight, after this Debate, feeling that we have


Struck a blow to save those of our men who are fighting abroad, and to prevent any raw materials of the type I have described being applied by or supplied to potential aggressors?

9.37 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Supply (Mr. John Freeman): I will endeavour, in the very short time available, to give full answers to the questions which the right hon. Gentleman has put to me and also to deal with one or two other points of somewhat less importance which have come up during the Debate. I should like to say, first of all—I am sure the right hon. Gentleman will allow me to do so—that we on this side of the House are very grateful to the right hon. Member for Aldershot (Mr. Lyttelton) for the way in which he opened this Debate. He made a speech which we on the Government Front Bench thought was helpful, and no one on this side has had any desire to criticise his approach to this problem. I do not think all other hon. Members followed that example, but I desire, in the few minutes at my disposal, to confine myself as much as possible to the more important issues that have been raised.
Let me refer, first, to one or two minor matters which I should like to get out of the way. The hon. Member for Woking (Mr. Watkinson), to whom we all listened with great respect on this subject because of his great knowledge of the machine-tool trade, raised at considerable length the point of the commercial expediency of a general policy of exporting this sort of machine tool to Eastern Europe and the Soviet Union. I will say to him only two things. First, there is a division of opinion on that and the machine-tool trade itself is by no means unanimous; secondly, although one listened to what he had to say with respect, it was not strictly relevant to the Motion or the Amendment which we are debating tonight. On the subject of technical drawings, I should like to have a further discussion with him outside this House, because I think that this may be a point where he could be of assistance to the Government.
I should like to refer also to a point which one or two hon. Members have made, notably the hon. Member for Merioneth (Mr. Emrys Roberts), on the

subject of joint purchasing agencies and stock-piling. All I want to say on this is that the Minister of State, speaking in the Defence Debate last week, made a statement on this subject and refused to be drawn further at that time than the words he used; and I do not propose to be drawn further tonight than was my right hon. Friend last week.
The hon. Member for Hull, North (Mr. W. R. Hudson), when, I regret, I was temporarily out of the House, raised a point, which may have been of some importance, about the alleged export of some bomb moulds from this country. As at present advised, I cannot trace that incident at all and if it took place in the form in which he has been informed, it must have been a case of something slipping through the control by either inaccurate or inadequate description. If he will furnish us with the information which he has, we will look into the matter and endeavour to stop that gap.
May I also refer, before turning to the major issues put by the right hon. Gentleman opposite, to a remarkable speech—I think everybody who heard it will agree with that description—made by my hon. Friend the Member for West Ham, South (Mr. Frederick Elwyn Jones). Obviously, not very many people in the Chamber agreed with the point of view that he put forward. He took the line that the greatest crime we could commit in this matter at this moment would be to break our agreements. I think the value of his speech, with which I did not entirely agree, was that he did bring home to everybody who heard him the fact that there are very much two sides to this question and that it is a very serious thing to take any step which interferes, or which seems likely to interfere—because that is the truth in this case—with any agreement that has been made. My hon. Friend indeed used words to suggest that we should not interfere "for our own convenience" with an agreement which has been made; but any interference which may take place now is not for our convenience, but for our safety and I believe that the House, as a whole, though it treated with respect the argument which he brought forward, will disagree with him.
After all, very few of the tools, to take machine tools as an example, that have


been discussed in the House this afternoon are going to be ready for delivery and shipment in the very near future. In many cases a decision which is announced now may not actually take effect on an individual tool for a year or more. During that year the Soviet Union, the Government of Poland or any of these countries has every opportunity to reassure us as to the doubts we feel at the moment about our own safety owing to the international situation. It is, of course, for the House to decide, but I feel certain that the House will agree that the line of the Government's Amendment to the Motion is approximately right.
Coming now to the major issues which were put from the Opposition Front Bench, may I say, in passing, that I think the criticisms, implied or explicit, from the Opposition Front Bench of my right hon. Friend's speech were a little churlish, in view of the number of times he was interrupted. I think that right hon. Gentlemen opposite will find when they read HANSARD tomorrow that his statement was perfectly clear, and if it seemed that it was not perfectly clear on that side of the House, I am not altogether surprised; but I do not think it was the fault of my right hon. Friend.
There are two problems which we are facing. First, there is that which the right hon. Member for Aldershot put to us, namely, what sort of tools ought to be on the list of controlled exports? Secondly, there is the problem, which is not quite the same, of the tools which are by type already on these lists but which for some reason or other, either because the orders were placed before the control came into force or because they are special cases in some way as a result of trade agreements, have not up to now been caught up in the control system. I ask for the forbearance of hon. Members opposite in interrupting as little as possible at this stage, and I will endeavour to give a reply in the crispest language I can command.
Since April, 1949, control lists have existed of some types of war material, either raw materials or machine tools or whatever it may be, which are the subject of a complete embargo, and also of other types which are not subject to an embargo but which are subject to quantitative restrictions in order to prevent the

supply going to a potential aggressor being more than is required for normal civilian use. At the time these controls were brought into force, there were some orders which had already been placed, and it was, I think, accepted by the House—and certainly there was no criticism that I can trace at the time—that these controls should not then be retrospective. That is the policy we had been following up to the time of the Korean war.
What my right hon. Friend said this afternoon was this. Where there is a machine on order or being manufactured which would have been on the control list but for the fact either that it was ordered before the control came into being or that it was covered by some specific provision in a trade agreement, that would be caught up by the announcement that he made this afternoon. What he said this afternoon—and this I think will be clear when it is read in HANSARD in the morning—was in effect—if I may not quote his words but summarise them—that our own defence needs and those of the Commonwealth and North Atlantic Treaty organisation came first.

Mr. Churchill: Superseded.

Mr. Freeman: The right hon. Gentleman is now helping me in exactly the same way as he helped his right hon. Friend. I have no quarrel with him at all over his choice of words—superseded all other needs. What we have said is that we will immediately carry out a review of our own needs, the needs of the Commonwealth and the needs of the North Atlantic Treaty Powers to try to ascertain, as accurately as we can, which of these strategic materials or products now on order either are wanted or are likely to be wanted to meet those needs, and where we find such goods are needed we will take them to meet our own needs. I do not think that I can make a more specific statement on that point.

Mr. Churchill: What about their being used by the other side?

Mr. Freeman: My right hon. Friend went on to say that he could not give an undertaking at this stage that where we found that something which was on order was of no use either to ourselves or to our allies, it would be prohibited. He did not—I draw the attention of hon.


Members opposite to this—refuse to prohibit it. What he said was that he would not give an undertaking on this occasion that it would be prohibited, but that each case, as it came to light, would be judged in the light of the nature of the machine and the international situation as it existed at the time against the sort of principles which both he and I have enunciated to the House.
I cannot forecast at this moment—and I am pretty certain that no one else in the House can do so with any accuracy—how many of these tools are infact likely to be needed, but if I may offer an observation to the Opposition with the desire to be helpful, I would suggest to them that in fact they will find their point has been very substantially met, and I think that they would probably not wish to divide the House on what is a very narrow issue.
May I turn now to a point which, I think, is of equal importance, and which was put to me by the right hon. Member for Aldershot in the course of his opening speech? This is a matter of some complexity, and I confess to not being a technical expert; I very much doubt whether the right hon. Gentleman himself is an expert on these matters, and therefore I hope we shall manage to understand one another. He suggested that, whereas the Government had included in their list of controlled tools certain types which are obviously of prime strategic importance, they had omitted certain other types which were, according to his brief, of equal importance.

Mr. Lyttelton: According to his opinion.

Mr. Freeman: Well, according to his opinion.

Mr. Lyttelton: I have had six years of it.

Mr. Freeman: Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will allow me to say that he was extremely well briefed this afternoon. The reason I did not interrupt him while he was speaking to give the answer to his question was that there are very complicated points of technical definition involved, and I was not prepared to intervene on the subject until I had the chance of further discussion with the technical people who advised me. He mentioned particularly vertical borers, large centre

lathes and the largest kind of planing machines. Let me say, to begin with, that vertical borers are already on the list. There is no doubt about that, and some—I believe seven—machines which are likely to be ready for delivery by Craven Brothers in the quite near future will be requisitioned by the Government, either for Ministry of Supply or Admiralty purposes.
As regards the other two types of machine he mentioned—large planing machines and large centre lathes—I am sorry that I cannot give the categorical answer for which he asked, but to some extent, of course, the matter has been overtaken by the announcement of policy by my right hon. Friend. The position is that there is a further list of exports to be controlled which is at present, as my right hon. Friend told the House, under consideration as to its final details. I am not prepared tonight to give the House the full list of the items contained, which is obviously lengthy, but I can say that certain types of large planers and large centre lathes are comprised in that list as it exists at the moment, which means that they will probably be included in it. There are certain difficulties of definition. On the whole, we have tended to define these large tools by the end uses to which they are put, and not merely by size. There are certain types of these tools which have specific munition application that have been embargoed for a long time.
Before I go further, I would wish to have fuller technical consultation than has been possible during the course of the Debate, but if the right hon. Gentleman has any further doubts about it, I can reassure him by saying that, pending a final decision on these points of detail, we will include any of the sort of machines referred to by the right hon. Gentleman and not yet under control in the review which my right hon. Friend announced of our own and allied defence needs. Moreover, we will examine the position put to us by the right hon. Gentleman with sympathy and a desire to meet his point as fully as we reasonably can.
I hope Members opposite will agree that I have done my best to use the crispest language possible to answer the questions put to me. I do not think there can be much doubt where the Government stand on this matter.
Before sitting down, I should like to refer to one or two other matters which the right hon. Gentleman mentioned in passing. First, he referred to the question of transhipments. Right hon. Gentlemen opposite who have had experience of these matters will realise that this is one of the most difficult of all controls to administer effectively without damaging our own legitimate commercial interests. It has been accepted between ourselves, the United States and the other countries involved that the only way to deal effectively with this matter is for the prime source of the material concerned to be responsible for its ultimate destination. We are all aware of the fact that there was a case quoted in the Press recently where this system broke down. It would be undesirable in the House this evening that I should be pressed to say more than that I do not think the responsibility for that was the responsibility of His Majesty's Government. But I do think that steps are being taken by the people concerned to try to stop that sort of thing happening again.
The right hon. Gentleman also mentioned, a little to my surprise, the question of the action which had been taken recently by the United States Senate. I want to say only one thing on that. It has become fashionable amongst hon. Members opposite to suggest that there is a kind of perpetual conflict going on between the British Government and the United States Administration on these matters. This is not a subject about which there ought to be party controversy, nor is it a subject that ought to be laughed off. The fact is that the pattern of trade in this country is different from the pattern of trade in the United States, and it is not surprising that we should sometimes approach these problems on a slightly different basis; but, step by step, we have been in company with the United States in the action we have taken. On any further discussion of steps we are going to take in the future, my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary is in Washington and it is more appropriate that any discussions on this subject should be taken there than across the Floor of this House in Debate.
Finally, may I say that it is, of course, entirely up to the Opposition whether in the end they choose to divide the House on this or not, but I hope they

will not, because I think the answers I have given to the questions put to me have been explicit and have substantially, if not entirely, met the points which were put to us. Some of us feel—and I say this with great respect to the Leader of the Opposition—that the right hon. Gentleman presented this matter in his broadcast in a way which, whatever the motives may have been, was not conducive to the sort of calm discussion which has been given to it this evening.
What has been perfectly clear is that there is a very great consensus of opinion on both sides of the House as to the sort of measures we ought to be taking. All of us are determined to do anything we can reasonably do to avoid our young men in the Armed Forces being subject to greater discomforts and dangers than they need be by virtue of any commercial policies which we may follow in this country. That is utterly rejected by all of us and most of all by those hon. Members of the House who have seen their own comrades fall in battle.
That is a subject about which this House should not divide. It is essentially an extension of the Defence Debate last week, in which we managed to achieve a high degree of unanimity. Even if there is a difference of opinion between the two sides on what has been done in the past—I have not the slightest hesitation in defending the steps we have taken and the time at which we have taken them—it is still not relevant to the Motion and Amendment we are discussing this evening. What we are asking the House to do now is to support the policy of the Government as expounded this afternoon by the President of the Board of Trade and by myself; and I would respectfully suggest to hon. Members on both sides of the House that it would be consonant with the dignity and honour of this House that we should do so without a Division.

Question, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question," put, and negatived.

Proposed words there added.

Main Question, as amended, put and agreed to.

Resolved:
That this House approves the policy of His Majesty's Government in stopping, in all appropriate cases, the export of equipment and materials likely to be required for the defence programmes of this country, of the rest of the Commonwealth, and of North Atlantic Treaty Powers, and, in consultation with those countries in continuing and, where necessary, extending the controls on the export of equipment and materials of military value, while at the same time maintaining, to our mutual benefit, trade between the United Kingdom and Eastern Europe.

DEFENCE (COAL SUPPLIES)

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Mr. Sparks.]

10.0 p.m.

Mr. Harold Davies: I am asked to take this opportunity to raise what I consider is a matter of vital importance, especially in relation to the Debate that we have had upon Defence. I want to raise the issue of coal in relation to defence. We have been listening to a Debate today in which the Opposition sought to discuss the pros and cons of the export of materials and machinery to Eastern Europe. One of the most important factors in the entire issue of defence has been omitted from the whole of this Debate and the Debate of last week. The base of the pyramid of British defence is now, as ever, coal. We have heard in the Debates practically nothing upon the coal position in Britain and the relationship of coal supplies to the defence of this island.
The Opposition case today has been made on unreality when we analyse the national issue of British coal supplies. Britain plays an important part in the production of the coal of Western Europe. One half of Western European coal comes from this island. Any system of defence of Western Europe depends as much as ever upon British supplies of coal. In addition, this island is responsible for one-third of the supplies of Western European steel. Consequently, no matter how boldly we talk about defence and about being strong, unless we have coal from the pits of Britain, or unless we have adequate supplies of coal, any talk of defence in this House becomes unrealistic.
The Opposition missed one point when talking of strength in defence, that

Western Europe depends upon Eastern Europe, and particularly Poland, for a large amount of its coal. Belgium needs to import 25 per cent., Luxembourg 100 per cent., and Italy, which is within the sphere of Western European defence, 100 per cent. When we are talking of our defence we must keep in mind the factor of coal. We had figures last week to show that coal stocks in Britain are improving, but we know that there is a large gap. I am not saying what it is at the moment. We know that, on 2nd September, coal stocks had risen by 320,000 tons to 13,428,000 tons. That is a coal stock of 1,166,000 tons below the stock of last year.
I do not want to make a party point about this. I want to point out the seriousness of the issue. It is necessary, so the Minister says, ultimately to get our coal stocks to the figure of 16,500,000 tons. We are faced at the moment with a decline in manpower. In 1945, 17,351 miners left the pits. In 1947, with the nationalisation of the industry and better conditions, there was a jump of 26,165 more miners in the industry. But again the drift from the pits is beginning. In the first quarter of 1949 there was an increase in recruitment of 322 miners but in the first quarter of 1950 there was a decrease of 6,345 men.
This has nothing at all to do with nationalisation but it has quite a lot to do with the arduousness and difficulty of the job. No one is more grateful than I that the House realises the gallantry of the Scottish miners who gave their lives to win this valuable material so that we might propel our industry and strengthen our defences. I still have the horrible memory of my experience as a child when I was living in the valley where the greatest explosion in the history of British mining took place, in Senghenydd, South Wales.
I appreciate the efforts of the miners to produce this coal to make our progress possible, but the trouble is that, because of our full employment policy and our increased production, what we produce now cannot keep pace with rising consumption. We found that in the week ending 2nd September the consumption of coal was 65,000 tons more than in the previous week. The total consumption of coal in the first eight months of this year amounted to about 146 million tons, an


increase of 4,436,000 tons consumed in industry compared with the same period last year, and at the same time as factories, power stations and dwelling houses are using more coal we are experiencing a decline in manpower.
I therefore ask the Government to look into the issue of pay in the Forces and pay on the surface and at the coal face for the miners. The issue will have to be faced. The best miners also make the best sappers, and if we want to keep the miners in the pits pay and conditions will have to be considered. This is one of the problems of a nation which has agreed to arm like Sparta. If a nation seeks to arm like Sparta, it will ultimately have to live like Sparta. Talk about defence is purposeless unless we have enough coal to maintain our industries.
Despite the gallant effort of the miners of Britain who have given 30 million tons more since 1949, thus saving the nation from disaster, and despite the magnificent effort of the Coal Board, we have to offset that by the increased internal consumption. The Minister told us not so long ago that in 1949, with full employment and the rising productivity of labour, total home consumption of coal, including factories, electricity, gas and railways but excluding house coal, was 34 million tons more than in 1938. We are scraping the bottom of the barrel and Lord Hyndley has warned the nation in these words:
Either we get more coal or the whole basis of British life may be threatened.
That has nothing to do with the Labour Government being in power. It is because of the speed of mechanisation and the great consumption of coal in this country.
I have heard from the benches opposite cheap jokes about opencast coal, and hon. Members are smiling now, but before they smile let them listen to the facts. It was the 57 million tons of opencast coal that enabled this country to export 56 million tons of coal and to earn £126 million of foreign currency with which to feed our people, to get animal fodder, and to keep our industry going. Before the Opposition smile let them read Professor Hancock's book on the British war economy. Speaking of the coal position during the war he says on page 478 that three factors prevented shortage of coal from becoming a serious brake on war

production. The first factor only need be mentioned. It was the development of opencast production.
The Opposition talk of strengthening the defences of Britain, but they are trying to make party capital out of the issue of opencast coal. Nevertheless, opencast coal today is as necessary as ever it was because any scheme of defence which does not see that coal is plentiful becomes meaningless. We are drawing on coal stocks and if we want Defence, if we want 38 new power stations and extension of the 43 existing ones, it would be a tragedy for this country if the Opposition got into power and applied a policy to coal such as they applied in prewar days. How are we to solve this problem?

Mr. Nabarro: Get more coal.

Mr. Davies: The hon. Member says get more coal. Exactly. But the Coal Board is expected to perform a gigantic and almost impossible task. It needs a breathing space to win new seams and sink new shafts. Some of our best seams have been worked and burned, and year by year coal has been won at greater depths from thinner seams. In some of our old pits we are reaching the point where the antiquated haulage system and the old-fashioned shafts cannot cope with the supplies of coal coming from the coal face. On both sides of this House men of experience know that it takes time to work out a development plan. For instance, when the Coal Board took over we were told that there were 60 different underground railway gauges of varying widths and that tubs varied from 3 cwts. to 3 tons capacity on the haulage. Standardisation of the haulage and of the tubs takes time.
Although this may sound heresy, I believe it is essential common sense at this moment to win time by buying foreign coal. At one period in our history we were great wool exporters. There was a change in our economy and the time came to import wool. The United States of America is one of the greatest producers of petroleum in the world yet nobody criticises American economy because she imports oil. Just as America imports oil and Britain has had to import wool, the time has now come for Britain to consider the importation of foreign coal if we are to have reality in our talk of Defence.
London already imports coal from Newcastle-on-Tyne, and the docks and wharves—[Interruption.] Hon. Members opposite shake their heads. Let me finish the point. The docks and wharves which are used for the importation of coal from Newcastle have the machinery which could handle coal imported from Europe or elsewhere. If the Opposition benches maintain an acrimonious tone about trade with Eastern Europe, we will not be able to get the coal if we need it.
Where are we to get coal if we need to import it for the defence of Western Europe? There are three places. First, there is American coal, but that costs dollars and the British people would have to pay for it for years and years. Then there is Germany or Poland.

Mr. Nabarro: Wankie coal.

Mr. Davies: If the hon. Member studied the matter he might discover that wankie coal is one of those which, if transported great distances by sea, might burst out from spontaneous combustion. The hon. Member should understand that for that reason there are certain coals which cannot be sent great distances in ships.
I believe that the Government should now be considering the importation of coal. Far from such a course being testimony to the failure of the National Coal Board, it would show that both the Government and the nation face the realities of the situation. Although I was not able to catch your eye, Mr. Speaker, when I sat through the three days of the Defence Debate, I believe that this fundamental point of the need for coal supplies was missed entirely in that Debate, and tonight in the Debate about exporting machinery to Russia the need for using Eastern European coal has been missed.
I ask my hon. Friend, therefore, whether the possibility I have suggested has been considered, and what is the policy of the Government to stop the drift from the pits, to improve the conditions of the miners, and to have a complete investigation into safety in mines. What are the Government doing as regards pay in the mines in relation to pay in the Forces? I should like to know also what is being done to proceed with the development plan and to give the Coal Board a breathing space for that plan to go ahead until we can win new seams, widen haulages, and deepen and widen shafts.

10.18 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Fuel and Power (Mr. Robens): The House, like myself, will have listened with great interest to my hon. Friend the Member for Leek (Mr. Harold Davies). None of us would disagree with his general contention that coal is vitally important to the nation and must play its rôle in defence. It is the source of all our power and without it we should be very badly placed indeed.
Before replying to my hon. Friends' questions, I should like to underline some of the things I said a week or two ago in the country about stocks, production and consumption. This is very important, and I should not want to under-rate the rather serious situation in which the country might find itself with consumption having well overtaken the increase in production.

Miss Irene Ward: That is quite different from what the Minister said.

Mr. Robens: I do not think so. I have an extract from his speech, but we have not time to debate it.

Miss Ward: I mean when the right hon. Gentleman was answering my Question today.

Mr. Robens: In answering the Question today, my right hon. Friend said we had to build up our coal stocks.

Miss Ward: He said they were all right.

Mr. Robens: No, he said they were being built up. If the hon. Lady will have patience and allow me to give one or two figures, I will show how these stocks are building up. When I have said that, however, I shall not say that we are happy or satisfied about the position.
The country must have 16,500,000 tons of coal in stock before the onset of winter. That is not necessarily tied to a given date such as the end of October, because weather plays a part in it; but we generally begin to lift stocks towards the end of the year, and therefore there is not much of a breathing space beyond the end of October to get the 16,500,000 tons in distributed stocks. On 9th September, which is the latest figure I have, the total distributed stocks amounted to 13.4 million tons, which does show an improvement, carrying out what the


Minister said in answer to the Question this afternoon, an improvement in the stock position. At the same time, the gap between 13.4 million tons and 16,500,000 tons which is absolutely essential as a minimum is far too wide for any of us to be complacent about it.
There has been a big increase in production, of course. In 1949 there were 5.7 million tons more produced than in 1948, but the fact is that internal consumption has gone ahead. In 1945 the inland consumption was 179 million tons and in 1949 it was 195,500,000 tons. That is an increase in internal consumption of 16,500,000 tons in four years. One cannot expect to get big increases in productivity in all sorts of industry without having raw coal burned to provide that increased productivity, because we are all well aware that it is horsepower at the elbow of the worker that gives increased productivity, and that means coal and fuel of all kinds, whether in the form of gas or electricity.
That internal consumption increase has continued during 1950, and in the 35 weeks to 2nd September inland consumption was 133.2 million tons. In the corresponding period of last year it was 129.5 million tons, so we have an increase over last year in 35 weeks of 3.7 million tons. This is where we strike a great difficulty, because during the same period of 35 weeks production has only increased by 1.8 million tons. In other words, we are losing ground to the tune of nearly two million tons already this year.
Stocks for industry naturally give any Government cause for great concern, because this country could not tolerate an approach to a fuel crisis such as we had some years ago and we cannot reckon upon reasonable temperatures for winter. That is why it is so essential that stocks should be at the level I have indicated. The other day I took the chair at the Emergency Committee of the National Production Advisory Council for Industry, which, as the House knows, is representative of industry generally, and of the regional boards for industry. We discussed this very important matter of industrial stocks.
We have agreed to get industrial stocks up to a level of about four and a half weeks, which is a good safety margin, by about the middle of December. In that

connection industrialists will require during those weeks to take what coal is offered to them. I do not think it is any use at all industrialists refusing to take coal which may have to come from another coalfield which is not their usual source of supply. If they are to get up their stocks, they will have to take the coal which is offered to them.

Mr. Geoffrey Lloyd: Does that mean that they must be prepared to accept a quality different from the ordinary quality? Would that always be suitable for their appliances?

Mr. Robens: I am not thinking so much of quality, because the National Coal Board should seek to give the quality they want, but it may be necessary for them to take coal from a coalfield which is not the coalfield from which normally they get their supplies. Because of that fact there may be some hesitation on the part of industrialists to take these marginal parcels of coal. I am only saying to industrialists that they should not in these weeks refuse to take coal of similar grade because it happens to come from another coalfield.
My hon. Friend referred to the falling manpower, about which the House is made well aware by the statistics made available from time to time. My hon. Friend said that the increase in the pay of the Forces would have an effect upon recruitment to the mines and indeed on the drift of men from the mines. I gather his suggestion was, that if that drift was not to continue, we should do something about miners' pay so that the Forces' pay would not be so attractive to miners. It is not an argument for tonight's Debate, but I must say, thinking aloud, that the whole argument for increasing the pay of the Forces in order to make the Forces attractive, disappears immediately every industrial worker's pay is increased by that amount.

Mr. Harold Davies: The fact that coal is the base of the pyramid of the defence and the production of this country places coal in an entirely different position from any other of our products.

Mr. Robens: I am sure my hon. Friend believes that sincerely, and as one of those in the Ministry which is responsible for coal I also like to feel that and I realise


it is, but it is extremely difficult to get dockers, electricians and others to accept that line of thought.

Mr. Nabarro: Would the hon. Gentleman clear one point about manpower. During the Recess many reports have been circulating of Army, Navy and Air Force Reservists being recalled from the coalface in connection with the Korean episode. Is it the intention of the Ministry to allow Reservists to continue to be called up from the coalface, or are they to be retained at their much more important job?

Mr. Robens: That is important, and matters such as that have to be considered by the appropriate Ministers who are responsible for the call-up, in consultation with the Ministries concerned. I mention that in passing only because my hon. Friend made a special point about it.
So far as pay is concerned, it is never the Government's desire to intervene between the publicly-owned enterprises and the trade unions in the case of straightforward negotiations. An offer was made by the Coal Board of 5s. which would bring the minimum rate to about £6 per week for underground workers and £5 15s. for surface workers in respect of the datal men. That case went to arbitration. The arbitrators have considered the case and we are waiting to hear their final decision. We shall obviously not want to interfere on wages matters between what are employers and employees as represented by their trade unions.
We at the Ministry are doing all we can in regard to safety in the pits. This is not a political issue. All Ministers of Fuel and Power have at all times done all they could to improve safety in the

pits. Figures show year by year a gradual improvement—fewer fatalities and fewer accidents of a serious nature which are reportable.
I am sorry that I cannot reply to all the points that my hon. Friend has raised, but I should like to reply to the important issue he raised about the importation of coal. It is not the Government's intention to import coal, and while my hon. Friend put a very good argument, and while I have no doubt that under a given set of conditions which I need not at this stage mention it may be necessary to think about that, all I would say at this stage is that the Government do not propose to import coal.
We will certainly go on doing our best to attract men into the pits. The difficulty about the industry in relation to its organisation is that there is the long-term programme with which we may not interfere by a vigorous short-term policy. Otherwise we shall probably get more coal now and less coal later. The long-term programme has to be fitted in with the short-term programme. We shall supplement output by opencast coal. I gave some figures and indications about what we were to do in the course of a Debate before the House rose for the Summer Recess. It might well be a good thing if we could have a breathing space, but it seems to me that the Board are doing the best they can under very difficult circumstances.

The Question having been proposed at Ten o'Clock, and the Debate having continued for half an hour, Mr. SPEAKER adjourned the House, without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned at Half-past Ten o'Clock.